March 1897.] 
Grote: On Noropsis Elegans. 
31 
THE CORRECT TITLE: NOROPSIS ELEGANS Hubn. 
By A. Radcliffe Grote, A. M. 
There are few species of moths, the Latin name of which has been 
given so variously as the very pretty insect which 1 venture to believe 
should be known in the future as Noropsis elegans Hiibner sp. It is 
found commonly in the West Indies and in Mexico, but within the po¬ 
litical boundaries of the United States is only hitherto reported from 
Texas, so far as I am aware. Not improbably it may be found in Flo¬ 
rida and, like the “ Spanish Moth,” Xanthopastis timais, it may be 
found at points further north upon the Atlantic coast line. 
And first as to the specific title. The moth is first figured by 
Cramer under the name Phalcena hier oglyphic a ; but at that date accord¬ 
ing to Guenee and the posthumous work of Moeschler upon the lepidop- 
terous fauna of Porto Rico, p. 149, there was already a Phalcena hiero- 
glyphica of Drury, a different species. The rule is: once a synonym, 
always a synonym, and at that time no second species of Phalcena , 
bearing the name of hieroglyphica , was permissable. It was then de¬ 
scribed as Bombyx festiva by Fabricius, Syst. Ent. 579, according to 
these same authorities. I find Bombyx festiva in Fabricius’ Mantissa, 
II, 127, No. 157? 1 7^7, which has no locality and is very briefly diag¬ 
nosed as : B. alis deflexis flavescentibus bast coeruleo maculatis apice 
nigro punctatis and which is probably this species. But the same or a 
similar objection meets us with regard to the name festiva. There was 
already, according to Guenee and Moeschler, a Bombyx festiva of Huf- 
nagel. The next name is Diphthera elegans of Hiibner. Guenee ob¬ 
jects to this name also, because there was another noctid called elegans , 
and this objection is sustained apparently by Moeschler. But there was 
no Diphthera of that name at the time (1810). It is well known that 
Guenee objected to the recurrence of specific names in the same lepidop- 
terous family as liable to cause confusion. The genera being then im¬ 
perfectly limited and the structural features not well understood, there 
can be no doubt that the evil of duplication was strongly felt. Yet 
there is no rule of nomenclature which would cover such change. It is 
now generally recognized in Europe, that a change, made in the same 
work by an author in a specific title proposed by himself, should be ad¬ 
mitted. If admitted, then there is no limitation as to the name to be 
changed and, in the case of the changes of his own names, proposed by 
