106 7he Scottish Naturalist. 



shall be permanently retained, to the exclusion of all subsequent 

 synonyms. (Brit. Assoc. Code). 



5. In determining the priority of specific and generic names, 

 notice shall be taken only of those works, in which the Linnean 

 binomial system of nomenclature (propounded in 1 751) is 

 exclusively and consistently employed. (Thorell.) 



6. If a name is placed after the name of a species it shall be 

 that of the author who first described the species. 



7. A generic name when once established shall never be 

 cancelled in any subsequent subdivision of the group, but re- 

 tained in a restricted sense for that portion of the original genus 

 which was considered typical by its author. (Brit. Assoc. Code.) 



8. When a name is placed after the name of a genus, it shall 

 be that of the author who established the genus in the sense 

 in which it is actually used. (Sharp.) 



9. The same specific name may be employed in different 

 genera, but it is advisable that the genera should be sufficiently 

 remote from each other. (Staudinger.) 



10. The name employed for a genus in one branch of Zoology 

 may be also employed for a genus in another branch of Zoology 

 or in Botany, and vice versa, but it is not advisable. 



it. The name employed as a generic appellation may- be 

 used as a specific one in the same genus, but such a use is not 

 advisable. 



Simple as rule (1) is, and almost unnecessary as it appears to 

 be, yet the following cases for example (not to mention the 

 celebrated Amphionycha k?ioiv nothing) seem to prove that some 

 such law should occupy a prominent position in a code of 

 scientific nomenclature : — Aulocera JVcrang (so called apparently 

 from having been found in the Werang Pass) and Hespcria 

 Illinois (from the state of that name). Our American friends 

 seem to be the chief sinners in this respect. 



In regard to rule (3) it has been asked if, supposing a 

 letter be inverted in the name of a species when published 

 for the first time, the misprint is to be perpetuated in all subse- 

 quent printings of the name, and it has therefore been argued 

 that mis-spellings (such as gallii for galii, Zeuzera for Zenzera, 

 &c.) should also be corrected ; but it seems to me that, whereas 

 in the first case we cannot be said to have a word at all, if an. 



