THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 167 



proposal, notwithstanding its arbitrary and unscientific character, and its 

 injustice to other Entomologists, would perhaps be accepted by those who 

 have more regard for present convenience than for the establishment of a 

 solid foundation for Entomological Science. Unfortunately, however, the 

 proposition, although at first view practicable, leaves the matter exactly 

 where it stood before. 



Where is the authority that will be accepted by everyone when that 

 authority is governed, not by those fixed laws which should determine 

 questions of scientific nomenclature, but by individual opinion, the con- 

 venience of some particular class, or of the present generation of 

 students ? Surely Mr. Mead does not intend, as would be inferred from 

 his article in the June number of the Entomologist, that we should 

 accept the most recent names, or those which, having been published in 

 this country or by some well-known author, are more familiar to or more 

 generally in use among American naturalists. 



There are a k\v species, which from the excellence of their original 

 description and plates, or from their recent publication, have no 

 synonymy ; these are the only species which can be properly considered 

 as accepted by all (if we reject priority.) 



All that the friends of priority ask is that it should be allowed to 

 decide between names already in use. Allowing that the term " in use " 

 should be applied in science to any name attached to a recognizable 

 description, published in a work which is or has been on sale ; names 

 which are advanced in pamphlets printed for the private use of the 

 author, and only distributed among his friends ; and in state agricultural 

 reports not for sale (except at second-hand) cannot be considered as 

 published at all. 



To determine whether a description is recognizable or not is a matter 

 of much more difficulty, for here the judgment of individual students 

 would be likely to differ very much. We do not believe that every name 

 advanced by the older authors, often with but a line or two of loose 

 description, or a plate giving only a general idea of form and color, should 

 be retained. We do think, however, that whenever there exists a valid 

 description, the law of priority should take its course. In some cases in 

 which the description is not definite enough to determine the species, but 

 there exist authenticated types ; and in those cases in which the species is 



