Art. VII.—On the Nomenclature of the Lepidoptera of New Zealand. By G. B. Longstaff, M.A., M.D., F.E.S. Communicated by George Howes, F.E.S. [Read before the Otago Institute, 6th June, 1911.] During the early part of 1910 it was my good fortune to spend eight weeks in New Zealand, during which I visited many places in both Islands. Naturally enough, my attention was somewhat distracted from entomology by the other attractions of the country, but in spite of these, and in spite of the shortness of the time at my disposal, I was, largely owing to the kindness of Mr. Augustus Hamilton, Mr. G. W. Howes, and Mr. G. V. Hudson, able to obtain some slight knowledge of its insect fauna. Since returning to England many hours have been spent in the British Museum naming my captures. Moreover, I have had the opportunity of examining large consignments of New Zealand Lepidoptera recently received from Messrs. Hamilton and Howes. In addition, I have had the invaluable assistance of Sir George F. Hampson, Bart., and Mr. L. B. Prout, in the settlement of knotty points. Mr. Howes suggested that I might give some of the fruits of my labours to my brother entomologists in New Zealand. Obviously, it would not be possible to place at their disposal every determination of a specimen, but perhaps I may save them some of the trouble that I had to go through myself in seeking out the comparatively small number of New Zealand moths in the serried ranks of cabinets at South Kensington. All concerned in New Zealand entomology owe a great debt of gratitude to Mr. Hudson for his “New Zealand Moths and Butterflies,” which was published in 1898. The writer of a pioneer work of that description always labours under great difficulties—difficulties which must have been in his case greatly increased by his distance from the vast collections and rich libraries of Europe. This paper appears to be a criticism of Mr. Hudson's book, and so, indeed, it is; but it is a friendly criticism. His book has been most useful to me, alike in New Zealand and in England; and, in spite of imperfections, many of them probably unavoidable, no criticism can destroy the value of the life-histories and notes of habits and like matters, which find no place in such works as Sir George Hampson's great catalogue. All, I think, must join in hoping that some day Mr. Hudson may see his way to a second edition. Here I would put in a word of encouragement to those who, like myself, are not systematists, and are, naturally enough, much put out by the changes of nomenclature that are nowadays so frequent. The value of a generic name is comparatively small, since genera correspond to the views of naturalists rather than to the facts of nature, and with increasing knowledge the views of naturalists change rapidly. Some divergences of opinion are due to the recognition, or otherwise, of the genera founded by older authors, which may, or may not, comply with our rules of nomenclature. Sometimes, it is discovered that the author's type of the genus was a species now recognized as very different in structure from the others included with it. Sometimes a familiar old name is dropped because the type species is clearly congeneric with some earlier-described species. Many changes which seem from a New Zealand or an English point of view to be meaningless are clearly