THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 129 



done in Europe, where there exists so large an Entomological public, why 

 should it not be done here, where that public is so limited ? For instance, 

 in the genus Catocala, I have reinstated Gryiiea of Cramer ; but I hardly 

 think that, before my paper appeared, the insect had any name at all in 

 collections, or that the name oi nuptula, which I rejected, was used to any 

 extent. Outside of the difficulty of deciding what constitutes a name 

 " in use," I think the science is yet so young with us, that no names have 

 been used so much that their abandonment could lead to any confusion 

 or trouble of moment. Certainly if such changes can be made in. an 

 important European Catalogue like Staudinger's, there can be no reason 

 for the American Systematist being at all troubled at finding himself 

 obliged to make them. And with the use of Hiibner's genera, I find that 

 proportionately more of such names are used by Staudinger than in the 

 older lists of Boisduval, Heydenreich, Guenee or the English writers, 

 except, perhaps, Stephens. To the writers of the " Brooklyn Check 

 List,"' I would, in fact, recommend the study of Staudingier's Preface. 

 These writers profess, indeed, much veneration for Staudinger, and the 

 writers whom they somewhat vaguely term " Continental Authors," and 

 it is really worth while to ascertain fully what Staudinger says on this and 

 kindred topics in his " Preface." I think that we can adopt this 

 " Preface " as giving excellent judgment on all, or most of the moot 

 points in nomenclature, and be guided by it. The practice of giving a 

 specific name only once in a Family is discussed on page xviii of the 

 " Preface." This is properly condemned, but it is rightly insisted upon 

 that in two related genera the same specific name should not be used. 

 And where a change has been made for this reason, the new name should 

 be respected even if the species thus re-named should be removed to a 

 quite different genus from the one under Avhich it originally appeared, and 

 where it was re-named to avoid a duplication of the first specific name. 

 Thus "I should keep Puritana Rob., instead of bringing into use again the 

 original name for the species which was a duplication at the time. 



I would, finally, modify the law of priority and not recognize such 

 names as the one proposed by Mr, Strecker at the head of this article. 

 There is only one objection to such names, that they ofiend the ears of 

 many who are interested in the object they designate. On fair, " com- 

 mon sense" grounds, they should be rejected. And they have no excuse 

 for appearing, since names are more plentiful than species. In the present 

 case, the species should be catalogued under the name Streckeri, and no 



