140 THE ENT03I(JL0GISt's KECOHl). 



with so many species, and his figures are on the wliole so accurate, that 

 a nomenclature based on his, will rest upon a sure foundation of identi- 

 fication. The rival denouncers of Hufnagel and the Vienna Catalogue 

 will have no further use for their weapons, and to a very large extent 

 nomenclature will be brought back to what it was alike in Germany, 

 Prance and this country before Staiidinger descended and troubled the 

 waters. AVith regard to species not dealt with by Hiibner, the " law of 

 pi'iority " may be so far adopted that the earliest post-Hiil)nerian name 

 may be accepted, and the materials will Ite sufficiently ample to prevent 

 any great difficulty in arriving at a determination. The work of formu- 

 lating such a standard nomenclature cannot rest on any single indi- 

 vidual. It must be the result of agreement, perhaps compromise, 

 between competent students in many parts of the world. This country 

 possesses in Kirby a man who Avould lie its very fitting representative, 

 and there are many comiietent entomologists to whom he might turn 

 for consultation in difficult cases. In Germaiiy, Staudinger stands out 

 as the man (pialified for the task, and probably other countries could 

 furnish fitting representatives. We hfive the material then, and the men 

 to use it, l)ut have we got the money too ? Aye, there's the rub. One 

 might reasonably look to the Government to furnish the, to it, relatively 

 small amount needful, but I fear this is Utopian. Will the British 

 Association, wliicli once before took the lead in this matter, do it again ? 

 I fear our leading Entomological Society can hardly be hoiiefully looked 

 to, to take its fitting place in such an enterprise, but failing all these, Avill 

 not our wealthy entomologists, who are ready to give high prices for 

 rare insects, come to the rescue and do themselves lasting honour by 

 furnishing the means f(n' placing the trivial nomenclature of entomology 

 upon a fixed and settled basis ? 



Mr. Tutt said tliat it was impossible to criticise at length Dr. 

 IJuckell's paper, but two or three points occurred to him. Dr. Buckell 

 had referred to the fact that Schifermiiller's collection names had been 

 verified by various authors, and that, therefore, they ought to stand, 

 l)ut what certainty had Ave that the insects had not been changed, as 

 was often done, and as it was clear had also l)een done in the Linna?an 

 collection. ]t Avas very desirable that no name should be admitted 

 unless there Avas some descrijition or figure Avith a name. He, therefore, 

 considered Staudinger's practice a good one. Besides, Dr. Buckell 

 seemed to have lost sight of the fact that Avherever tliere Avas the 

 slightest clue to the Vienna Catalogue species, Staudinger had utilised 

 them. With regard to Hufnagel the case Avas different ; Eottemburg 

 simply extended and exj)lained descriptions already in existence, a 

 method often adopted by modern authors themseh-es. The tAvo cases 

 Avere in no way, therefore, so parallel as Dr. Buckell suggested. With 

 regard to taking Hiibner as a starting jjoint, Mr. Tutt doiibted Avhether 

 it would not make confusion worse confounded, and instead of the 

 occasional raking itp of an odd name by students, a Avhole army of 

 Hiibner's. names Avhich are noAV used as synonyms Avoixld l)ecome 

 })rimary names. He concluded it Avould be much 1 tetter to form a list 

 based on those of Staudinger and Kirby, dealing simply Avith those 

 names about Avliich there is distinct difference of opinion. 



A further discussion folloAved, after Avhich a hearty A'ote of thanks 

 Avas accorded to Dr. Buckell for his paper. — A. U. Battley and J. A. 

 SiMES, Hon. Sees. 



