204 THE CAXADIAX EXTOMOLOGIST. 



* 



doubtful cases, to restrict its operation to the time since the commencement 

 of Oliviefs part of the Encyclopedic Methodique, and to accept his 

 decision as final on all cases up to that time, in the same way that the 

 1 2th edition of Linnaeus is accepted as final on the question of binominal 

 nomenclature. 



2. If the authors anterior to the 12th edition are ruled out because 

 of the imperfection of the binominal method up to that time, it would 

 surely be consistent to exclude those after that time who failed to recog- 

 nize its necessity. Species cannot, of course, be cited from them, for they 

 gave no specific names ; but I will go farther, and say that genera ought 

 not to be attributed to them, except so far as to quote them in synonymy 

 for their generic ideas, which were brought into harmony with the system 

 of nomenclature by subsequent authors. They will live in the literature 

 of the science in synonymy, but they have taken no part in the formation 

 of the names of the objects, by which alone we know them and can 

 speak of them, and therefore should not appear as authorities. 



The proper application of the fourth canon is attended with still 

 greater difficulty, and I fear that the two sets of opinions regarding the 

 authority to be placed after the binominal name are absolutely irrecon- 

 cilable. The arguments in favor of the original describer of the species 

 on the one hand, and of the author of the binominal combination 

 adopted on the other hand, are equally strong, perhaps, as regards the 

 convenience of science, and each side has been argued with the utmost 

 ability. I have therefore nothing to say on the subject in the way of 

 argument, and suspect that for some time it must be left to the discretion 

 of each student to decide under which system he can work best. 

 Practically I do not regard it as a matter of any consequence, if each 

 person will distinctly declare in his work which system he uses. The 

 number of instances in which any confusion can result are few, and the 

 synonymy in catalogues which are always at hand will at once resolve the 

 doubt. 



I may be permitted to observe, however, that clearer views of the 

 respective merits of the two methods would prevail, and possibly even 

 some harmonious result more speedily be obtained, if the arguments 

 involved less discussion of purely personal interests. It would seem from 

 some expressions of opinion I have seen, but which I forbear to refer to 

 more definitely, that there are those that believe that one main object of 

 descriptive natural history is to give the authors a sort of jDroprietary 



