1950] 
Fairchild, — Generic Names for Tahanidae 
119 
they are thereby validated. In regard to the authorship, it is now 
well known that Lutz was the author of this list. It is doubtful if 
he realized that the names appearing therein were being published 
in the nomenclatorial sense as he never subsequently referred to this 
paper although he consistently used the names proposed therein. He 
himself gave me my copy, and the whole list, with minor changes, 
was republished in 1911a, where the new genera are all credited to 
Lutz, according to Borgmeier. I have not been able to secure a 
copy of this paper, but it seems to have been also in the nature of a 
guidebook to the exhibit of the Instituto Oswaldo Cruz at some sort 
of international scientific exposition. 
The difficulty in accepting these names as of 1909 lies not only 
in a lack of definitions, (which is of less importance, as the names 
were published before 1930, when the rules on this point were mod- 
ified), but in the dubious character of the publication itself. The 
pamphlet is anonymous, it is not a periodical, nor any regular form 
of scientific publication, and there is much probability that it was 
never intended or offered for sale, though it may have had wide 
distribution. There is, thus, strong reason for considering that the 
names appearing in it were not validly published and are hence un- 
available as of that date. If this stand be taken, the next chronolog- 
ical appearance of the names must be considered. This was the 1911a 
paper, which seems to have suffered from all the faults of its pred- 
ecessor except anonymity. (The Pangoniinae may be excluded from 
further consideration, as the new genera of this division were all 
validly proposed with definitions or species in recognized journals 
in 1909, so that they date from this year in any case). If the 1911a 
paper be excluded from consideration nomenclatorially, the next in 
chronological order is 1912, where Dicladocera, although not defined 
as a genus, is accompanied by the description and figure of a valid 
species in a nomenclatorially acceptable publication. The difficulty 
here is that this species, unicolor Lutz, appears not to be congeneric 
with the species previously included, as Bequaert and Rengifo (1947 
Psyche, 53 [3-4] :68) have pointed out, necessitating the use of 
Enderlein’s Dasy chela for the species placed by Lutz in Dicladocera. 
Lutz’ 1913a paper validates Stigmatophthalmus and adds Ilim- 
antostylus. Then, also in 1913, comes the first exposition of Lutz’ 
scheme for the classification of the Tabaninae. Here appear all the 
remaining names of the 1909c list, plus four additional new ones. 
They are not formally proposed as new genera and are not ac- 
