SOClE*tfeS. 139 



under the name of medon an insect which has been supposed to he the 

 same, but his description is unverifiable. Rottemburg, alhiding to 

 Hufnagel's rnedon, expresses doubt whether it is not a variety of an 

 insect, which he afterwards describes under tlie name of alexia. It is, 

 however, doul)tful whether Eottemburg's ahxts is anything more than 

 the female of heUargus, which lie did not knoAv, or did not recognise. 

 Esper, under the name oi medon, figures first an insect the size of icarus, 

 dark brown with blue nervures, which is certainly not agest/s, as we 

 know it. In a later plate, however, as a variety of medon, he figures 

 a typical $ agedis and Borkliausen adopts this name. Doid)leday ac- 

 cepted it in his Supplement of 1865, and Newman adopts it. Staudinger, 

 however, rejects the name because it had been used for another insect by 

 Clerck, in 1759, and claims priority for Bergstraesser, Hector of the 

 evangelical Lutheran Latin school in Hainault, who Correctly figured and 

 described the insect in 1779, under the name of astrarche. Kirby, 

 however, goes further back still, and calls attention to what is un- 

 doubtedly the fact, that Scojjoli, in 1763, had most accurately 

 described the insect luider the name of alexis. The insect described 

 two years earlier by Poda may be the same, liut this is douljtful. If, 

 therefore, the *' law of priority " is to be strictly applied, we must, 

 with Kirljy, call the insect alexis, the insect at present called by that 

 name having undoubtedly to take in its place the earlier icarus of 

 Eottemburg. 



Having now dealt with trivial nomenclature in the past and present, 

 I turn, if your patience is not exhausted, to the future. Stainton, in a 

 pajjer read to the Entomological Society in 1849, well says : — -' In nomen- 

 clature it is of the greatest importance that entomologists be unanimous, 

 for if each one chose to call an insect by a different name, and persist 

 in so calling it, endless confusion must arise." At present, the nomen- 

 clature of Staudinger commands a greater amount of support than anv 

 other, and English workers can best bring themselves into line with 

 their brethren by adopting the English version of that nomenclature 

 provided for them by South. But tlie time has, I think, come when a 

 standard trivial nomenclature should be agreed upon, Avhich should 

 undergo no Jr.rther alteration, save such as may be rendered necessary 

 by changing views as to Avhat forms are or are not entitled to specific 

 rank. It is, I think, quite hopeless to look for the establishment in the 

 near future, if ever, of an unalterable standard of generic nomenclature, 

 because generic nomenclature is so intimately connected with classifi- 

 cation, and iipon this subject our views Avill Ije likely to change witli 

 increasing knowledge, and moreover it is a subject upon wliicli there 

 will always be room for legitimate differences of opinion. The fixation 

 of trivial nomenclature, however, is not attended with these difficulties, 

 and we have, I think, abundant material for the jiurpose. The onlv 

 difficulty that will arise of a serious nature will be to determine 

 the basis upon which the standard should be founded. I have 

 come to the conclusion that the " law of jDriority " cannot form that 

 basis. The differing results arrived at by Staudinger and Kirljy, 

 both zealously seeking to carry out that laAv, the varying opinions held 

 as to the validity of some of the earlier authorities, and the imjierfection 

 of the descriptions of many even of the generally admitted authorities, 

 Linna?us not excepted, suggest strongly that a new jioint of departure 

 must be taken, and that can, I believe, be found in Hiibner. He dealt 



