19 
that to the very few specialists who can master the multitudinous 
grades of relationship, it hardly matters at all which have and which 
have not, special names, and that the non-specialist knows just as 
much if he knows that five species are genetically close enough to bear 
the common appellation of Tephroxia ( Kctropix) as would be the case if 
he only knew of that nomenclatural combination for the two closest. 
Nay, further, he even knows a little more ; for the average field- 
worker readily learns—sometimes to his cost—that Tephrosia 
biiuviylaria and crepuscularia are the closest relatives ; while he may 
need a clue in nomenclature to teach him that punctularia assimilates 
structurally thereto. 
(‘2) The other argument is said to be historical, but is based on an 
insufficient study, or inaccurate interpretation of history. Linnaeus 
is the acknowledged father of binomial nomenclature; and he nowhere 
preached nor practiced that the genus should be the “ next grade above 
the species. In the order Lepidoptera he distinctly indicates that 
there are but three genera— Papilio, Sphinx, Phalaena, yet he 
immediately proceeds to work out an elaborate system of subdivision 
for two of these. He does not actually use the word “ subgenus,” 
which Mr. Tutt abhors; but as he uses a nomenclatural grade below 
the genus, without giving that grade a name, it was perfectly competent 
to his successors to provide a name for it, and “subgenus” is quite 
obviously the most appropriate. But even if that name be objected to, 
the fact remains; call the names, Bombyx, Noctua, Geometra, etc., 
“ sectional ” if you will, still you cannot get away from the fact that 
they are there, and that they denote a grade lower than the genus. It is 
a mere quibble to say—as some did say in the Hampson Nomenclature 
Correspondence—that because the names Bombyx, etc,, more nearly 
corresponded to our conception of genera, they ought to be regarded as 
the Linmean genera, and Phalaena as of some higher rank. ° Neither 
really corresponded at all to our modern conceptions, but the same might 
be said of his /m-sectionised genera in Coleoptera, etc., whose names have 
always been accepted without demur. That the author himself intended 
Papilio, Sphinx, and Phalaena, to represent the true genera, and to 
form, with the specific names, the pure binomials, is shown by the fact 
that in the “ Amoenitates Academicie,” he writes Phalaena so-and-so 
without the subgeneric interpretation at all; and even in the “ Systema 
Naturie ” we frequently find what is really the same usage—“ Affinis 
Ph. jacobaeae,” etc. Nowhere in his works do we find Bombyx or 
Geometra, or the rest, used in a binomial. His usage is, therefore, to 
all intents and purposes, the same that is recommended in the most 
up-to-date code of nomenclature, except that he usually omits the 
marks of parenthesis. For a modern genus with subgenus the 
correct form of citation is: Cidaria ( Euphyia) picata; for 
ordinary, simple citations, Cidaria picata alone. Finally, should it 
not be conceded that Linnjeus had a right to decide which were his 
own genera, or which were the correct binomials, the claim that with 
him the genus was the next diagnostic grade above the species is 
stultified by the fact that he still subdivides even his subgenera (genera, 
as some would have us call them) Phalaena geometra, etc. In this 
particular group he subdivides twice, first according to the pectinate 
or non-pectinate $ antenna, and secondarily according to the angu- 
lated or non-angulated hindwing. 
xix. 
