THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 29 



Now, here are four modes of determining the typical species of a 

 genus, propounded by as many authors, and there may be others for 

 aught I know to the contrary, all with the view of simplifying these 

 sciences, under the operation of Rule i. Is it strange that " an incredible 

 amount of confusion " is the result ? 



Linnaeus placed under Papilio the princes of the order, and no matter 

 what restrictions may have been made hitherto, these hundred years, 

 Papilio has always had a magnificent following, increasing in 

 splendor as the years went on. And now we are told, in 1872, that, 

 in order to save the claims of the hitherto unappreciated Schrank, 

 who published his speculations in 1801, Papilio is to be ejected from his 

 rich possessions, and made to share the rest of his unlucky days with the 

 dingy Vanessan to whom hard fate and Mr. Scudder has driven him. No 

 more the superb creature 'we have read of, with " glistering burganet," 

 and " shinie wings as silver bright," — " refreshing his sprights," in " gay 

 gardins," " pasturing on the pleasures," &c; but, like Clarion, "reduced 

 to lowest wretchedness," his good times all over, he flits about in slums 

 and nasty lanes — and there we leave him. 



In the explanatory remarks to Rule 4, it is said: — " It is an act of 

 justice to the original author that his generic name should never be lost 

 sight of." By Mr. Scuddefs new creation the name Papilio is so nearly 

 lost sight of that it might as well disappear altogether. It is certainly 

 no compliment to Linnaeus to retain it. 



And this brings up the whole question of the obligation of naturalists 

 to adopt whatever system any one may propose. Clearly enough, the 

 right of ignoring changes made in Nomenclature is recognized even by 

 the most determined advocates of strict priority, when applied to their 

 contemporaries. A genus is set up, and no one follows it. It happens 

 constantly, and it seems to me that in this matter one's contemporaries 

 are the proper judges of one's work, and that no reversal of their judg- 

 ment may rightfully be looked for from posterity, and therefore the writings 



asserts that the definitions of a Westwood, or of a Doubleday, are " careful and 

 elaborate." I was much struck on reading these words in Cope's Origin of Genera, 

 page 6: — "The reader will often find introduced into diagnoses of genera characters 

 which indicate nothing of this sort ; " and these, "adjacent genera of the same series 

 differ from each other but by a single, character." From which it may be inferred 

 that inordinate length of generic description is not commendable, and is not properly 

 attainable. 



