THE CAXADIAX EXTOMOLOOLST. 20 



ry 



the same authority which fixes the principles themselves, that is : the 

 common consent, expressed in a more or less formal manner, of the 

 majority of those engaged in systematic study relating to the improvement 

 of classification. 



Now, the I St and 2nd canons have been already put in execution by 

 the rule adopted by the British Association, and reaffirmed by the 

 Association of American Naturalists and Creologists, as follows : 



" Rule III. The Committee arc of opinion, after much deliberation, 

 that the Xllth edition of the Systema Nature is that to which the limit 

 of time should apply, viz., 1766."' 



This rule was adopted after much discussion regarding the respective 

 claims of the loth and the 12th edition to be considered as the basis of 

 the system, and I think for wise and sufficient reasons. However that 

 may be, there is no room now for individual difference of action ; it is a 

 law, and must be obeyed by all good citizens in the Republic of Science, 

 until modified or abrogated b}' an authority equal to that which 

 enacted it. 



The third canon respecting the law of priority is also formulated in 

 several rules of the British and American code, but in such manner as to 

 render its application somewhat difficult. The following considerations 

 seem to me of sufficient importance to require a definite decision, when 

 the next opportunity occurs for formal action. 



I. It is obvious, on an examination of the works of the earlier 

 authors in Entomology, that they did not attach the same value to the 

 fixity of nomenclature that circumstances have since rendered necessary. 

 Linnaeus changed apparently without cause several of the specific names 

 from the loth to the 12th edition. Previous to that time, he used the 

 generic names in difterent senses, in difterent editions, without any 

 explanations. Geoffroy described genera without reference to genera 

 previously established by Linnaeus. Fabricius did the same with regard 

 to Geofitroy, and also in some instances changed his genera from 1775 to 

 1787, without reason, or even reference to the earlier name. 



It is not until we come to Olivier that we find in Entomology the law 

 of priority appearing ; and not then as a matter of principle, so much as 

 a courtesy due to the earlier describer. 



I would therefore respectfully submit, 1st, that a rigorous application of 

 the law of priority to those authors who did not act in accordance with it,. 

 will lead to much confusion ; and it would probably be better, in all 



