326 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [J ll b r > >I2 



stability until all the genera and species of the early authors are mono- 

 graphed by specialists, but the law is a means to an end, and it is 

 working slowly but surely to that end; the real question is this: which 

 is the best scientific basis to adopt, the principle of Nomina conservanda 

 or the Law of Priority? 



For general zoologists, especially perhaps professional zoologists and 

 biologists, no doubt the former would be the more convenient. A short 

 time ago one of the most eminent entomologists in England said to me, 

 "of course Passer domesticus will always be Passer domesticus to me." 

 He was not an ornithologist, and naturally the names we have known 

 species by for many years remain remembered, simply because we are 

 not working at that group. That gentleman, however, is a strict 

 "Priorist" and it is quite impossible for a systematist and a specialist 

 to be otherwise. When we monograph a group, we must look up ail 

 the old literature on the subject and find out if they had previously 

 described any of the species we are working at. This is not antiquari- 

 anism it is scientific investigation. If they had I for one should feel 

 obliged to adopt the oldest name up to the loth edition of the Systema 

 Naturae (1758). By this process we gradually bring Kosmos out of 

 Chaos, to use an extreme phrase, and we are working to put the next 

 generation on solid ground. I think Mr. Caudell is largely right when 

 he says that "priority is certain of more unanimous consent," for I feel 

 sure this will be so among systematists and specialists. 



I cannot, however, understand for what reason the commission sent 

 round a note of inquiry about Meigen's names; they appear to have 

 forgotten their own laws. The adoption of that list of names is ab- 

 solutely contrary to article 25 b; it breaks the very first law of "The 

 Law of Priority" which reads: "The valid name of a genus or species 

 can be only that name under which it was first designated on the con- 

 dition that the author has applied the principles of binary nomencla- 

 ture." 



Meigen did not apply the principles of binary nomenclature, therefore, 

 the whole of that list published in 1800 is invalid and cannot be 

 adopted if three years later he adopts some of those genera and indi- 

 cates their species as well, then, but only then, does he comply with 

 the code, and therefore the names date from 1803 not 1800, and as a 

 consequence some of Latreille's names dating from 1802 have prece- 

 dence over Meigen's, which can only date from the time when he 

 conformed to the principles of binary nomenclature. My view of this 

 is, that the commission cannot break their own laws and if they want 

 to rule in favor of Meigen, they must amend article 25 ; this I sincerely 

 trust they will not do. Of course the commission may say that they 

 have only ruled in favor of those names where they are found valid 



