SCIENTIFIC NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 14? 



work, with which I am sorry to have only just become acquainted, and 

 after I had sent in the note printed in the November lieconl, I think I 

 yield to no man. And I am of opinion that the value of Dr. Chapman's 

 work is far higher, and its effect on our favourite science more enduring, 

 than the work of a nomenclator can ever be. Such an one merely 

 makes the tools with which the master works. Suuin cuique. — 

 A. Radcliffe Grote, A.M. Noronber itii, 1895. 



I can only^reiterate my disagreement with Professor Grote's conclu- 

 sions. So long as he uses the term " genera " in connection with the 

 natural groups which have been found to exist in the old so-called genus 

 Acronycta, I maintain that he must limit such genera to three, since 

 Dr. Chapman has shown us that structurally there are three genera 

 (evolutionary groups), and three only therein. Of these genera, one — 

 Viminia — presents in its species, auricoma, euphorhiac (myricae), 

 menyanthidis, albovenosa, rumicis, and enphrasiae — no structural 

 differences, they "are very closely related and hardly admit 

 of sub-division." On this quotation alone they must be restricted 

 to one genus, and to admit more is tacitly to disagree with 

 Dr. Chapman's conclusions, based on his excellent work, for the Dr. 

 says in so many words that they do not admit of being broken up into 

 a number of "genera," but are indivisibly one genus. Yet Prof. 

 Grote and Mr. Butler find us generic names for almost every species. 

 They say, indeed, if not in so many words, — this is our decree : That 

 a number of old entomologists who followed the Linniean method of 

 giving two names to every insect, evidently without knowing anything 

 of the biological science that it has taken their successors above a 

 century to learn, gave a number of unmeaning names to almost every 

 individual species, in addition to the trivial name that designated the 

 species ; that we, as synonymists, being specially entrusted with the 

 care of handing down these gruesome remnants to posterity under the 

 name of synonymy, care nothing (and know nothing) of the biological 

 studies of your leading men, and their conclusions are nothing to us, but 

 we will settle the names their final groupings shall bear. Our business 

 is with names and here is our command. We find five of your six 

 species have had separate generic names given them, here they are : — 



Viminia inenyanthidis 



Pharetra auricoma 



ArctomysciM eupliranae 



Arsilonvlw albovoiosa 



Lt'pito rum iris 

 Take them, use them, and don't ask any questions about them. By- 

 the-bye, we have not found one for euphorhiae {myricae) yet, but we 

 hope to do so shortly ; until we do you can tack it on to one of the 

 others (since they are all structurally identical it don't matter which, 

 in fact, you had laetter ask your biologist which one he would like it 

 tacked on to). We grant him this temporary privilege as a reward for 

 his labour. 



To all of which the logical Britisher replies : — It is necessary that 

 the names of things should be fixed and definite, and hence "trivial " 

 names, since they define " things," should be subject to your rigid 

 laAvs ; but " generic " names representing as they do "groupings," 

 which are necessarily at present in a state of flux, are continually in a 



