SCIENTIFIC NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 



199 



about the specimen, then : Is it " a suffused aberrant grata," &s Pro- 

 fessor Smith suggests, or is it "a representative of a distinct species allied 

 to the common North American E. (/rata , " as averred by Professor Grote ? 

 According to Professor Grote's note, referred to by Professor Smith 

 {Record, vol. vi., p. 249), Mr. Schaus, of Twickenham, supports Prof. 

 Grote's view, the doubtful species having occurred in Mexico. It 

 would appear, therefore, from the evidence at our disposal, that the 

 species is distinct, and one of those unknown up to the present time to 

 Professor Smith. — J. W. Tutt, 



Is NOMENCLATURE A PART OF THE SCIENCE OF BIOLOGY '? It is not 



without considerable diffidence that I take up my pen to write a note 

 which may bear even the faintest suggestion of an undervaluing of 

 Dr. Chapman's splendid work at the "Genus Acronycta; " but my 

 love of law and order impels me to protest against what appears to me 

 the very dangerous precedent of allowing his sub-generic names general 

 acceptance as generic in the face of all the established rules of 

 zoological nomenclature. Of course if, as Mr. Tutt assumes {ante, 

 p. 58), biology can ever "clash with literature," there is no question 

 which is the more important in the biological science of entomology ; 

 but I do not think this is really the case, seeing that the literary and 

 bibliographical part of the entomological science is, and always has been, 

 dependent upon the biological, and the use of names is not in itself, as 

 I take it, any part of biology. I think that practical workers in 

 zoological research have always been accorded the full right of re- 

 arranging genera, suggesting new systems of classification, &c., &c., 

 and surely it is only reasonable that this should be so ; but what about 

 the separate department of nomenclature ? 



When Dr. Chapman first proposed his new sub-generic titles in 

 Acronycta, I saw no objection, because I understood that they were 

 intended to be biological rather than nomenclatorial ; and the Doctor 

 himself continued to treat the group as " the genus Arrunj/cta.'" But 

 when one begins to find records of Bisulcia lif/mtri, &c., one naturally 

 enquires, is the old genus then abandoned, and if so, what right has 

 the new name ? If the genus is really to be split up, it must be done 

 according to the rules of nomenclature, and we must call in the aid of 

 a departmental specialist in that direction. And here I would remark 

 that it appears to me that Mr. Tutt's strictures on the use of un- 

 familiar generic names in the American Entomological News {vide, 

 Record, vol. vi., pp. 30-31, 154) would apply, mutandis mutatis, to some 

 experiences which our American cousins may meet with in perusing 

 the pages of the Record ; only that there is the important difference 

 that such names as Thamnonoma may be verified from the ordinary 

 recognised sources of reference, while for Cu-yndia, &c., search might 

 be made in vain. 



Of course the justification which will be offered for the " dangerous 

 precedent" in the erection of Dr. Chapman's names as generic, lies in 

 the exceptional nature of his " monumental work," as Mr. Tutt truly 

 calls it, and I am afraid it will be a long while ere anything will be 

 produced to equal it. But we are hoping that it will be equalled some 

 day, and that investigators will arise to work out other groups on 

 similar lines ; and then, upon this precedent, it will be farewell to all 

 stability in nomenclature ! 



The practical issue of these notes of mine is just this : I hold that 



