22 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



adopted by the British Association, in 1842. (I have been unable to> 

 obtain a copy of this Code, and only know its Rules as I have found 

 them recited in various authors. On applying to Mr. A. G. Butler,. 

 Brit. Mus., I received the following reply: — " I can get no exact informa- 

 tion as to when and where these Rules were published. At the time, 

 they appeared in the report on the Meeting, and separate copies were 

 struck off and distributed. Most of our Entomologists have either made 

 copies of them or have seen them, and a few say they have printed copies. 

 somewhere." . 



This Code was not found to work altogether satisfactorily, and never 

 did receive the general assent of Naturalists in their several departments. 

 Prof. Verrill says, u The success of these Rules was but partial, even in 

 England, for a considerable number of English authors have either ignored 

 them or adopted them in part, often violating the most obvious and im- 

 portant Rules. In Conchology, especially, the violations have been 

 lamentably numerous." 



In 1865, a Revised Code was adopted by the British Association,, 

 which Code is printed at length in the Am. Journal of Arts and Science, 

 July 1869, with valuable notes by Prof. Verrill. In this Revision some 

 important changes were made, with a view to curing the defects of the 

 original Code, and of gaining a more general acceptance. It is significant 

 that Botany is recommended, by the Committee of Revision, to be 

 omitted from the operations of the Code. 



These two Codes may, so far as my purpose is concerned, be treated 

 as one and the same, as the Rules that I consider obnoxious are found in 

 both of them, and it is of their application to Entomology only that I 

 have to speak, and more especially as affects the Lepidoptera. 



The first Rule reads as follows : — " The name originally given by the 

 describer of a species should be permanently retained, to the exclusion of 

 all subsequent synonyms." 



It is declared by those who are familiar with the facts, that the object 

 of this Rule was not to drop out of sight all existing names in favor of a 

 rejected or obsolete name, but to give the right to that one of the names in 

 use that should be found to have priority of date. 



For a period of years after 1842, it is asserted that such was the under- 

 stood effect of the Rule, until a generation arose who knew nothing of, or 

 overlooked the circumstances connected with its original proposal, and 

 who took the letter of the Rule as their guide. And gradually there has 



