88 
placed 26 species in this group, and it is, perhaps, somewhat to their 
credit that with only three exceptions — maeniata, Scop., linariata, 
Schiff., and rusticata, Schiff.—they all remain still in the Cidaria of 
Lederer or of Guenee. 
The group, however, remained without a name for just half a 
century, and it was not until 1825 that Treitschke imposed upon it 
the name of Cidaria, diagnosing it afresh three years later. In the 
mean time Hiibner, in Augsburg, was showing that the Viennese 
entomologists were not to have any monopoly in classification. In 
1806 he produced an entirely new scheme thereof in his famous—or 
infamous—“ Tentamen,” in which our Lareutiadae formed the majority 
of his third tribe, “ /Equivoke,” and two of Schiffermuller’s Fam. M., 
viz., hastata and maeniata, became types of new stirpes, named Iiheu- 
maptera and Petrophora respectively. During the succeeding ten or 
twelve years he further elaborated his scheme, dividing and sub-divid¬ 
ing his stirpes, and from 1816 to 1825 or 1826 he published his well- 
known “ Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterline,” in which he arrives 
much more closely at our modern idea of genera than any of his 
contemporaries or immediate successors. Unfortunately, the dates of 
publication are still the subject of much uncertainty and controversy ; 
Packard uses 1818 for its whole geometrid portion, while on Fernald’s 
showing the part which concerns us this evening could hardly have 
appeared until late in 1825. As Ilampson, Meyrick, and Aurivillius 
propose adopting 1826 as the date of the whole work, we shall prob¬ 
ably do wisely in giving Treitschke’s 1825 volume priority over it. 
Hiibner, however, was certainly unacquainted with Treitschke’s work, 
and, of course, does not include Cidaria amongst the many names 
which he provides. I will not weary you with a list of these, but one 
or two of them will be mentioned presently, as required. 
Concerning Treitschke’s Cidaria, two or three important facts 
need to be emphasized; these I would tabulate as follows :_ 
1. The name appears to be valid. Herrich-Schaffer’s ex cathedra 
statement that it must be abandoned as “ preoccupied ” seems 
unjustifiable; at least, I can find nothing nearer to it than Cidaris, 
and even that is pre-Linnean. 
2. It was not, even on its inception in 1825, a “ nomen nudum,” 
for although Treitschke did not accompany it with a diagnosis, he gave 
a distinct reference to Schift'ermuller, where the diagnosis is found. 
8. Hiibner s action, whether before or after Treitschke’s, was so 
entirely independent of it as not to “ restrict it in any possible way. 
4. Duponchel (Hist. Xat., vii., pt. 2, pp. 108-112, ante Apr. 11th, 
1829) gi\es an important list of types for the 48 genera, into which 
he divides Oeomctridea, and amongst these is < 'idaria fulcata. In some 
respects this was not a happy choice, as “most” of Schiffenniiller’s 
species were those with stouter larvae with the “ horse-shoe ” or “ V- 
shapod markings, but as it does not absolutely contradict the 
diagnosis, and was one of the species originally included by Treitschke, 
?7 must he accepted according to the law of priority. Thus fulcata, 
I^orst., and any species which may prove congeneric with it, will be 
the true Cidarias. 
Duponchel, in 18, jO (/ list. f\at., \ iii . , pt. 1, p. 800), gives the 
following as his list of ('idaria, removing some of Treitschke’s to 
other positions : ( henopodiata(~ cinmtata'), pupulata, inaiinorata (-as- 
