( x\' ) 



I. GEXETJAL STn'.JECT. 



Tlll'i resoavclies cniboilioil in ;i work like; tlio ]irospiit, avo of two vory dilTorent 

 kinds. "\Vo liad, h'lstly, to study the insects dealt with ; and, seenmliy, to 

 study the names l)estowed upon tlietn Ijy previons authors. It may sound almost 

 ridienlons, Imt it is nevertlieless true, that in many cases the time one h.-is to 

 spend over the nouienclature of a form, in order to clear np nomenelatorial muddle 

 and to find out what form autlifirs have meant to desi,!i-nn.t(> with a oerta,in name, 

 eipials or surpasses the tiiue oik^ can, ioi- certain reasons, devnte to the study of 

 the uaturnl history of tlie aiiimnl. Surely this is wronu'. The Natural History 

 of tlie a,nim;il lieinn' the sul)ject of our science, the acci>ssory suhjcci of nomeu- 

 idature should nevei' have a,ssnmed such mn-u'uirude. it is waste of energy. 

 However, we have patiently to hear the i'rnits of the sins of our forefathers in 

 science, and those who eouK^ ai'ter ns will a^-aiu mutter bad langun.i;'e. Oni' may 

 kick, but one has to sutfer. We have no sympathy with those of our contem- 

 porari(^s who eontril)ute unnecessarily to the burden, which is in itself superfluous, 

 and detracts from the eiforts devoted to our science. The system of naniing the 

 groups of individual specimens of animated nature lias been invented as a helj) 

 to tlu^ student of science, but it has been carried ont from the beginning in such 

 a way that it necessarily developed into a bother as well. Why? Because the 



PRINCIPLES OF NOMENCLATURE 



were not strict enough. 



Science is a republic wliere everybody may do as he likes. Tiiere ;ir(^ no 

 laws which can be enforced ; and nobody can ln' ])revent(>d from ]iublishing 

 what lie jdcases. Tliis fi-eedom is a great boon to st'icnce. f'uibrtun.ately,' the 

 results of scientific research and those of nomenclature are of ipiite a difFer<'nt 

 standing. If tlie i)nrported results of scientiiic investigations prove to be 

 (M'roneons, they ari' rejnidiatod and forgotten. If somebody ]iro])ouuds "laws'" 

 of develo]iment wliich arc^ ibun<l to he err(nieous, science jiasses on witliont 

 tronbling any longer about them. If somebody considei-s the battledore scales 

 of /.//c/ij'ttii/oi' to lie fiiiKji, or the maxillary jialpi of Vitlicidnv to be antennae, 

 such statements are disproved, and are no further encumbrance to science. 

 Statements of fact, and conclusions, once proved to be erroneous, no longer 

 occnpy the time of the scientific student : science is rid of them. Science can 

 never get rid of a name of an animal or plant once ])ublished — unless quite a 

 different system of designation be adopted than that employed since the time of 

 Linne. We cannot simply ignore a name which is a record ol' an animal or 

 plant. For we mnst keep a record at least ol' all the forms which have become 

 known to science, since we cannot have a record of all the forms that exist nnd 

 have existed. Even names which are synonyms cannot be dropped ; they must 



