( ^vi ) 

 111' ciirricil nil fill- two reasons. l>'irstly. if tlioy \vov(> drojijiod and forpjotfen. 

 tlicy would in many casos ho. oniployrd ajjain for sonn'tliiiiL;' olsr, and thus land 

 lis inevitably in a ninddle. Secondly, closer researeh often proves that what was 

 considereil flic sanu' at one time is really different. A form may lor a lont; 

 time 1)0 lost si<;lit of. Imt scientists will sooner or later become aware of tiie 

 oversight, if the name is kejit on record. For instance, in onr case, tli(> liawlc 

 Moths described by Liinu' and {''abrieins respectively as s^)/,/„.r ///i/r/irt and 

 horrhiiri'ir have been treated us the same for aliont ]",'m years. AVIkmi we looked 

 np the original records, we tonnd I hem to relVi' to two wi<lely dillerent insects 

 belonginj^ to dillei'ent <;'enera. However, if it is granted tliat if is necessary, for 

 the sake of completeness ol' onr knowledge, to keeji on record all the names 

 uiven to forms of aninnils und phints, it will also be conceded tliiit it is an 

 nnjnstitiable act because it adds unnecessarily to the burden— to suppress a 

 mum' ;ind I'ephu'i' it by another. 



Some of the older writers did not seem to think much of recording an 

 already named species under a new name ami treating the older nam(> as a 

 synonym. I'^abricins — a great and intluential man in his time— set a very bnd 

 example to his ibllnwers not only by his insufHcieut deseriiitions, lint especially 

 by his arbitrary changing of names. For no reasons whatever he superseded 

 names given by |)rnry. Cramer, and others, by names of his own invention, and 

 eniploycMl - Worst of all — the rejected names for other s]iecies, thus entangling 

 the nomenclature to such nn extent that it is difficult to find one's way throngh 

 the impasse. With such an exnmjile before them, one caimof wonder that 

 others followed suit. Pxiisduval especially seems to have fonnd great jdeasnre 

 in his names being iirinfed. One cannot helj) smiling when one linds him 

 coolly re])lace Pa/iilio curlK'nor by a new name, '■'■ (i.rloii I'oisd.," and sees the 

 mannserijit-names which he had tiesfowed at one time or tlie other njion 

 S/)li>iiiii(l(ir appear in his monograph of the family under species which had 

 meanwhile been ba])tised by others. It may be comforting to an author who 

 conies too late to be nevertheless able to lannch his names on the scientific 

 world, but it should not lie done. AVhen Science was in its infiincy, a little 

 l)laying like this may have licen pard(niable, Imt nowadays there is no excuse 

 whatever for playing at nomenclature. " The species described by dones as 

 cotiforml.'t stands in my collection under the name of dsrll'is mihi," or something 

 to that effect, is not only a foolish thing to jniblish, but is an intolerable crime, 

 which should always be met by an energetic rebuff. Vanity has something to 

 do with this kind of proceeding, though there is really nothing to be ]irond of 

 in giving a. name to a sjiecimen and .avoiding criticism by shunning jiublicity. 

 Hut we d<i not (piito understand what is the object of those who are busy 

 jiublishing mannscript-names which are given by others and which they tind on 

 specimens in collections. As it is of no .advantage whatever to science, whether 

 it becomes known or not that a bird or butterfly which has a valid name stands 

 in this or that museum under this or that manuscript-name, there must be 

 some other reason for wilfully increasing the list of synonyms. Is it to jn-ove 



