SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 
105 
may say that Pastor Wallengren so far agrees with Mr. Butler as to 
include the whole of the Noduce Trifidce. among the Bombyces. 
With respect to Hiibner’s genus Tricena^ it is used first ^ in the 
Zuirdge, i., p. 21, for T. psi, L., and T. trifova, Hub. ; and therefore 
one or other of these two species is indubitably the type, if the name 
is not preoccupied or otherwise forestalled. At first sight it would 
seem easy enough to apply the rule of taking the species first 
mentioned under any new generic name as the type ; but even this 
is not without occasional difficulties. Thus, some years ago, Snellen 
Van Vollenhoven figured a moth as doubtfully belonging to P'elder’s 
genus Crambomorpha, which was not published by Felder till a year 
or two later. Thus, as the species referred to Cranibo 7 norpha by Vollen- 
hoven and Felder are not now considered congeneric (no characters 
were given by either author), Vollenhoven's species would actually be 
obliged to be accepted as the type of a previously unpublished genus 
to which he referred it with doubt, but that fortunately Cra?nbomorphus 
had already been used as a generic name in Neuroptera, which en- 
ables us to escape from the dilemma by rejecting Cramboinorpha in 
Lepidoptera, as being a generic name practically preoccupied in 
Zoology. — W. F. Kirby, British Museum, Natural History, South 
Kensington. June ijh, 1891. [By the above I understand that Mr. 
Kirby supports Mr. Butler’s would-be alteration of Dr. Chapman’s 
sub-generic names. Since Ardo^nysds, Hb. does not contain the type 
of Dr. Chapman’s Bisulda^ even by Mr. Kirby’s own showing, this is 
a good sub-generic name. Now, on Mr. Kirby’s reasoning above, psi 
is the type of Tricena^ on the same lines we may look on strigosa as the 
type of Hyboma^ abii as the type of Jocheoera, leporma as the type of 
Acj'onida^ and acetis as the type of Ardomysa's. But Dr. Chapman 
has shown that these are all, in their larval characters, etc., so closely 
allied that they may be grouped under his Cuspidia, but Messrs. Butler 
and Kirby argue : — This is a new name, therefore it is inadmissible, you 
can choose which you like of the above generic names, and give that 
to your genus. Mr. Butler settles that Trieztia is the best, but why 
Tricena more than any of the other four, and why either, since neither 
of them answers to Dr. Chapman’s diagnosis of the sub-genus ? Why 
is it such a gross mistake to sink all five names (as all are equally 
inapplicable), and notamistaketosink any four of them so long as you keep 
one ? Why is one of these ill-characterised and (as Dr. Chapman has 
proven) useless genera to be retained, whilst the others are to be sup- 
pressed ? Wherefore is it unconstitutional to sink one name given in 
ignorance, but not wrong to sink the other four? Or, putting it into 
another form, auricoma may be looked upon as the type of Pharetra^ 
euphorbicB. (myricce), as the type of Ardojuysds, but both these belong 
to Vi/ninia, therefore I presume Ardomysds = Phareda, since either 
might replace Viminia^ which must now be considered proven to 
every one’s satisfaction I must add that I think that the sooner 
the number “ of generic names (some ignored, some characterised 
more or less completely, and others not characterised at all) ” are 
relegated to oblivion, the better for the science, and why it is necessary 
' Dr. S. II. Scu.lder hns s’lown in his work on the Generic Names of Butterflies 
that the greater part of Ililbner’s Verzeichniss was not published till long after the 
ostensible dale (1816). 
C 
