108 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



OUR SPECIFIC NOMENCLATURE. 



BY THEODORE L. MEAD, NEW YORK. 



In the article published in the April number on the subject of nomen- 

 clature, it is stated that Mr. Scudder. in his Revision, has followed the- 

 same principles which govern all other departments of Zoology. It 

 would be interesting to know what these universally adopted principles 

 may be, for, judging from the recent publications on the subject, they 

 must be yet unknown to a great number of those eminent in science- 

 Mr. Wallace, than whom we have no higher entomological authority, in 

 his address to the London Ent. Soc, recommends English naturalists to 

 follow the British Association rules until others may be assented to, while 

 these same rules find scant acceptance in Germany or France. 



In regard to species having been described, not by naturalists but by 

 amateurs, this may be conceded in Hubner's case, but the term will hardly 

 apply to Linnaeus and Fabricius and the other authors whose species are 

 the cause of most dispute. 



Mr. Kirby's Catalogue is said to combine the results of the labor of 

 luiropean students, but Dr. Staudinger's elaborate and conscientious 

 Catalogue no less had the benefit of all these investigations, with the 

 result of hopeless variance as far as both works cover the same ground, 

 and that too when the principles of nomenclature adopted by either 

 author are almost identical with each other and with those which Mr. 

 Scudder apparently follows. In the group of insects best known and 

 most studied, the British Diurnals, these two authors differ as to the 

 specific names of one seventh of the entire number. This is the result 

 of rigidly following the law of priority, which should at once and forever 

 decide every possible case of synonymy. That does not seem encourag- 

 ing, for both authors in nearly all cases make the references to the same 

 obsolete and unrecognizable descriptions. 



The rule of absolute priority, adopted as paramount law by a few 

 investigators, has already brought about such a state of things as this, and 

 alone is capable of continuing it. 



Let the first law be stability of already accepted names, then the law 

 of priority takes its proper subordinate place to decide between names in 

 use. Rather than the term " law of convenience," used by the opponents 

 of this rule, though it is suggestive and to some extent appropriate, I 

 would propose the name " Law of Stability " as most applicable. 



