BRAUER AXD MIK 
177 
Most of these changes of names, as I have shown, have appeared 
in the Wiener Ent. Zeit. And yet, in the very same year when 
this periodical was started, Mik had expressed ( Wiener Ent. Zeit ., 
1882, p. 208) an opinion about the treatment of nomina bis lecta 
which was in direct opposition to his practice in regard to them. 
He said: “ It is unnecessary nowadays so anxiously to conform to 
the rule of nomenclature which requires such a change of names; 
the consistent application of it would involve frequent changes, and 
enable the first comer to introduce them with a ‘ Xomenclator Zoo- 
logicus ’ in hand.” A year later ( Verh. zool.-bot. Gesellscb ., Wien, 
1883, p. 184) Mik, intolerant as he was towards others, develops still 
further this rule of nomenclatorial toleration : “ As Robineau-Des- 
voidy’s generic name Eloceria is grammatically incorrect, I propose 
the amended name Helocera for it . . . without caring to inquire 
whether such a name is preoccupied for some other animal or not: 
a genus of Diptera of that name does not exist.” In an article, 
“ Nomenclatorische Fehltritte ” (Xomenclatorial Errors), published 
five years later in the Verh. zool.-bot. G-esellsch., Wien, June 6, 1888 
(Sitzungsberichte'), Alik expressed the same view: “A time will 
certainly come when the same [generic] name will be allowed to be 
used several times, as long as it is not used in the same order of the 
system.” 
Mik is confusing here a rational toleration with an explicit per¬ 
mission. If such a broad rule as he advocates were adopted, any 
entomologist, when looking for a new generic name, would be per¬ 
mitted to select for his genus a well-sounding name in another 
order of insects. The inconvenience which would result from the 
large number of nomina bis lecta thus introduced into the different 
orders of insects is obvious! At present, with the yearly publica¬ 
tion of entomological reports, containing alphabetical lists of new 
genera, any author, with a little diligence, can reduce to a mini¬ 
mum the risk of hitting upon a generic nomen bis lectum. But the 
truth is that instances are frequent of a total neglect of such pre¬ 
cautions, even on the part of entomologists most conveniently situ¬ 
ated for availing themselve^of them. 
Another instance of Mik's excess of self-assertion (as I have 
mildly called it) is found in the paragraph entitled, “ Eurymyia 
12 
