o 



72 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



I am so far from coinciding in my views with Mr. Hendel that I must 

 confess that the simphcity of his position is absoUitely laughable. 



I do not approach the question with the idea that two sets of names 

 stand before the bar of justice with exactly equal claims upon our decision. 

 The case is more nearly analogous to one that has several limes arisen 

 within a generation in the United States, when some persons have 

 endeavoured to claim valuable tracts of real estate on the basis of transfers 

 from Indian tribes a century or so ago. Even if the original transaction 

 had occurred as claimed, the contestants will find that every possible 

 presumption will be used against them, and justly so, to avoid the great 

 practical wrong and hardship of upsetting titles to real estate. So in this 

 case we ought to have no hesitancy in admitting that our attitude is that 

 no old names like these can create a "revolution" unless they exhaust 

 every legal technicality that we can throw in their way. This is not an 

 unfair position. It does not involve an ultra-conservatism, nor does it 

 involve a disregard of proper or generally-accepted rules of nomenclature. 

 It does involve some comprehension of the value of stability in nomen- 

 clature, a subject on which many entomologists might cogitate long with 

 profit. 



Mr. Hendel does not cite any rules of nomenclature to justify his 

 acceptance of the 1800 names. I will cite one to show why they should 

 not be accepted ; namely, article 25 of the International Code of 1904, 

 which says, "The valid name of a genus or species can be only that name 

 under which it was first designated on the condition (a) that this name was 

 published and accompanied by an indication, or a definition, or a de- 

 scription ; and (b) that the author has applied the principles of binary 

 nomenclature." 



Following this rule, I note as applying to (a) above, that the names 

 in 1800 were not accompanied by an indication, and the definition or 

 description (these two are practically synonymous terms) were as admitted 

 by Hendel unrecognizable (with possibly a few exceptions) until studied 

 in the light of the 1803 paper; they were therefore ?iomma iiuda. 

 Condition (a) was therefore not fulfilled in 1800. As to condition (b), if 

 the author of a paper mentions only genera and no species, he does not 

 apply a binary nomenclature. 



Furthermore, Dr. Stiles gives as his individual rule (in his comments 

 on the International Code, Hygienic Laboratory, Bull. 24, p. 27) : "12a 

 Rule. — The following species are excluded from consideration in selecting 



