250 On Generic Nomenclature. 



and even additionally requisite, if such a condition be possi- 

 ble where accuracy is always indispensable, because he there 

 corrects what he considers the inaccuracy of Mr. Curtis, but 

 who is certainly right." {Essay on Fossorial Hymenop., 

 p. 193, 194.) 



This is what I said ; and, in justification, I will proceed in 

 the following order. 



1. I will exhibit the apparent principle upon which Mr. 

 Westwood has acted. 



2. I will endeavour to discover how far my statement is a 

 partial one, 



3. I will prove Mr. Westwood's inaccuracies. 



And then, lastly, I will conclude ; as I presume by that 

 time the reader will be tired of me, Mr. Westwood, and the 

 whole affair. 



Firstly, then, as to the apparent principle which Mr. 

 Westwood advocates, which, as far as I can gather 

 from the course he has taken, seems to be that " the first 

 name applied to a genus or subgenus should be invari- 

 ably retained ; -• and that the author himself of the genus 

 or subgenus should not be allowed, "without good reasons," 

 to infringe this law. This, I admit, is an admirable maxim, 

 and I agree that it is important that it should be universally 

 adopted : but, as a corollary to it, I would suggest that it is 

 equally important that it be a fixed principle ; and the indis- 

 pensable condition to the establishment of a genus, that the 

 type be at the same time exhibited, which would insure justice 

 being done to the original describer, by the necessity for 

 retaining his generic name to the type, whatsoever might 

 subsequently become of its congeners, upon the occurrence 

 of new views, or the introduction of new creatures. 



It is trite to advert to the vast accessions that have been made 

 to all branches of natural history since the days of Linnaeus, 

 who must certainly be considered as the first promulgator of 

 the modern mode of treating the science scientifically ; even 

 without doing injustice to the memory of our immortal Ray. 



The necessary consequence of these immense additions and 

 new discoveries is, that the genera established by Linnaeus 

 have become either such vast receptacles as to be useless, or 

 comparatively so, to the promotion of the object for which 

 they were designed, or inadequate to the characteristic of the 

 creatures introduced. To meet this difficulty, Fabricius, who 

 succeeded Linnaeus in the entomological subdivision of na- 

 tural history, constructed new genera; and, in doing so, he 

 wished to supersede what he could not improve upon in prin- 

 ciple, and he introduced new characters; but new only in 



