59 



"Noctuae terrificae" Bork. was evidently not intended as a genus, the 

 author using "Phal. Noctua" as the genus for manra (1792, Natur. Europ. 

 Schmett., IV. 1). 



Boisd., 1829, Index Method., p. 69 states, "Genus Mormo adhibuit Illiger 

 in ornithologia : Vid. Nouv. Diet. d'Hist. Nat., t. XXI.". Probably the ci- 

 tation refers to "Prodromus Systemates Mammalium et Avium, Berol. 1911". 

 The authors possess neither of these works but consider the matter of little 

 importance if the Tentamen is accepted, Lemur Hbn. having priority. 



Lemur Hbn. with the synonymous genera Mormo Ochs. and Mania Trelts. 

 are merely incorporated herein because of the fact that the early authors (until 

 Stephens, 1829) considered typica and manra congeneric, 



Lathosea, Grt. 



Type Lathosea pulla Grt. 



1881, Grt., Bull. Geol. Surv., VI, 270, pulla, sole species and therefore type. 1890, 

 Grt, Revised Check List Noct, p. 14, #425, pttlla placed as preoccupied (?), pullata sole 

 species mentioned. 1893, Sm., Bull. U. S. N. M., XLIV, 163, pullata sole species men- 

 tioned, pulla placed as invalid. 1895, Grt., Abh. Nat. Ver. Bremen, XIV, 97, type desig- 

 nated L. pulla but pulla listed "nom. rej. Auct." and pullata substituted as species #852. 

 1898, Sm., Can. Ent., XXX, 324, refers a new species, ursina to Lathosea. 1903, Sni., 

 Ciieck List Lepid., p. 42, lists two species, pullata Grt., ursina Sm. 1905, Hamp., Cat. Lep. 

 Phal. B. M., V, 362, places ursma Sm., in Trichopolia. 1906, Hamp., Cat, Lep. Phal. B. 

 M., VI, 205, cites pulla as type. 1917, B. & McD., Check List, p, 57, place pulla with 

 syn, pullata as sole species, 1922, B. & Benj., Contr. Nat. Hist. Lep. N, A., V, #1, 28, 

 quote pulla Grt. sole species and therefore type; p. 29-30 a second species described, spanl- 

 dingi in err. for spaldingi. 



The t\T)e of Lathosea and the validity of pulla or pullata presents a com- 

 plex problem. In 1881, Grote described the genus Lathosea with the sole 

 species pulla. In 1890, Grote discarded the name pulla without stating why, 

 for pullata. He probably discarded it as a homonym of pulla SchiflF., a Euro- 

 pean insect referred by Hampson, to Cloantha, Pulla Schiff. has been placed in 

 many genera by various European workers but the authors can find no trace 

 of it ever having been placed in Lathosea; nor does pulla appear to have ever 

 been placed in any other genus than Lathosea. It would therefore seem that 

 pulla Grt. could never have been a homonym of pulla Schiff. 



The authors believe they have somewhere seen a statement by Prof. 

 Grote that he created the name pullata because of pulla Schiff, but a search 

 of the literature has failed to find such a statement. Such cases, it is hoped, 

 will be eventually settled by the proposed Synonymical Catalogue, Meanwhile, 

 without proof that pulla Grt. has even been a homonym of pulla Schiff. there 

 is apparently no reason to discard the earlier name for the Oregon-Colorado 

 species of Lathosea. If, however, it can eventually be shown that Grote's name 

 pulla was a homonym; that the name was ever placed in the same genus as 

 pulla Schiff, ; then pullata will have to be used. 



Such a condition would then leave a genus with a homonym as type. 

 In this particular case, the solution would be comparatively easy as at the time 



