88 [April, 



iiud fast law of priority, will blame tlie author for his righteous en- 

 deavour to call attention to the absurdity of any merely alphabetical 

 system, aud to provide a remedy for the confusion which would result 

 from its adoption and repetition. At the same time I cannot agree 

 with him in regarding the last three names, at the end of the list, as 

 coming within the same category as those above them. Mr. Busck is 

 certainly not guilty of having formed these three names on any similar 

 principle, or, may we say, want of principle ? They are not merely 

 alphabetical constructions without meaning : " banana " certainly 

 means something, a fruit, and there are precedents for the use of such 

 well-known words as special names. The practice is none the less 

 objectionable, and ought to be, if it has not already been, ruled out : 

 "rana" also has a meaning, a frog, and may have been suggested by 

 colour or appearance, such a name is distinctly allowable ; " kana " 

 may be a misprint for " cana," and the correction required, if any, 

 to bring it within the rules of classical nomenclature, is very slight 

 and involves no necessity for a new and different designation. It 

 seems regrettable that Mr. Meyrick should have included the work 

 of a careful and conscientious author in his otherwise well-applied 

 criticisms. 



Mr. Meyrick further expresses the opinion that "those who would 

 " write after such names as are proposed n.7i. instead of 71. sp. are basing 

 "an affected accuracy on a logical misapprehension; 71. sj). whenever 

 " applied, signifies a new specific name only, and not a new species ; 

 " Entomologists do not profess to have created the insect they describe ; 

 " the description is new, but so is any re- description ; the specific name 

 " is then the only really new thing that is intended by ?i. sp. and this 

 " applies therefore equally well, whether the insect has received another 

 "earlier name or not." Surely he is here proposing to entirely alter 

 the accepted meaning of n. sp. If this means anything, it means that 

 the author regards the species as previously undescribed, and there- 

 fore proposes a name for it. There is no question of creating the 

 insect or object described, which as he admits no one professes to do, 

 it is a question solely of a differentiation which has to be recorded. 

 In this case Mr. Meyrick' s names are not given to any record of fresh 

 observation or differentiation ; they are mere corrections, and should be 

 designated in the same way that a name misspelt, or misprinted, and 

 afterwards corrected should be indicated as such. " /i.w." has been 

 used I think occasionally to signify " nomen nudum " which means a 

 mere name, invalid because imaccompanied by description, or ixn- 

 connected with an illustration, and cannot be here applied in this 



