32 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. v. 
Guenee in the 3d vol. of the Spec. Gen., it makes no difference, there¬ 
fore, whether the change is made by him in the first or second use of 
the name. It must be followed and Guenee’s request be granted, be¬ 
cause the question of priority does not come into play. We have no 
right to change the second use of the name, when Guenee asks us to 
change the first. And there is no doubt that the use twice over of the 
same name in nearly allied genera is productive of confusion. In my 
own case I was led to propose to take “ me titans ” as the type of Apatnea , 
because Ochsenheimer had a species of this name in the genus which I 
wrongly took to be the common Gortyna nictitans L. sp., whereas it is 
a species or variety referable to the genus Oligia. But we have no right 
to change the specific names of other writers on this account and I 
think that the fourth name for our species, fastuosa of Guenee, must be 
referred to the synonymy. As there has been a neglect of the “Man¬ 
tissa” of Fabricius, it may be well to include this citation in the syno¬ 
nymy of the species. 
We have now arrived at what seems to be the correct name for the 
species, viz: elegans Hiibn. But a difficulty meets us as to the generic 
title also. The generic title Euglyphia , from the Verzeichniss, is pre¬ 
occupied by Hiibner himself, with the exception of a single letter, in the 
name Euglyphis. What is evidently the same name, even when dis¬ 
tinguished by the change or addition of a single letter, cannot be again 
admitted. Here the question is quite clear from the almost identity of 
the terms. We cannot admit Euglyphis and Euglyphia, any more than 
we can admit Oenosandra and Oenosanda. The similarity would in¬ 
evitably create that confusion which the rule was intended to obviate. 
The reason given by Herrich-Schseffer, Schm. Cuba, III, 8, for retain¬ 
ing Euglyphia, that the prior Euglyphis was “probably” not a valid 
genus, has no bearing on the case. The nomenclator is not called 
upon to judge of the validity of biological groups. Guenee proposed 
the generic title Noropsis for our species, while Herrich-Schseffer ob¬ 
jects (/. cl) that this term is too near Nor ops, already used in zoology. 
If it were so, it would be a reason for a new term, and it is a delicate 
question, since the derivation is identical. But I am inclined to believe 
that the two are sufficiently distinct and that we may rest content in the 
title Noropsis elegans Hiibn. sp., for the pretty moth and let it go at 
that. 
