i65 



Homo sapiens. But if Mr. Edwards wishes to make the comparison he 

 will find it more apt in " faithful Miss Smith " or " John Smith's book " 

 than in "Miss Faith Smith." 



2. Linnc'eus and Fabricius were rather free in their use of capitals, 

 as in some plant and locality names in addition to proper ones ; but 

 they were by no means univerj^al capitalizers ; whereas all the latter 

 writers whom Mr. Edwards quotes, as Kirby, Staudinger, Hewitson and 

 Felder are modern authors. In this country Mr. Edwards stands almost 

 alone, his only constant company being Mr. Herman Strecker, 

 though the fashion seems to be growing, and has been followed of late 

 by Mr. G. H. French and Mr. A. R. Grote. Mr. Edwards will have 

 difficulty in citing any good authorities in any branch of science, much 

 less in Zoology, who have followed, or do now follow the fashion, and 

 I cannot recall a single entomologist — Lepidopterists excepted — who 

 has or does. The large majority of Lepidopterists, in fact, do not, 

 which is strange if "it is the only proper thing to do! " 



Xo one at all familiar with scientific nomenclature, in any depart- 

 ment of research can doubt that since Linnajus's time the tendency — 

 always except among certain Lepidopterists — has been more and more 

 against the free use of capitals for specific names; while the custom of 

 writing all specific names with a small letter is rapidly gaining ground* 

 a result due, without much doubt, to the fact which I stated, viz: that 

 it always permits the distinguishing of the generic from the specific 

 names in articles where either are used singly — a desideratum which 

 no one who has followed the writings either of Mr. Edwards or of Mr. 

 Grote will fail to appreciate. Believing that this custom has many 

 advantages I have lately adopted it. Uniformity of termination m 

 scientific nomenclature for equivalent divisions is desirable, and rules 

 so far formulated have had this as one of the objects to be attained. 

 Uniformity of beginning in generic and specific names is equall}' 

 desirable. 



Mr. Kirby very courteously gives the only approach to a reason for 

 the custom which I criticize in that in lists of species " the capital 

 initial letter catches the eye so much more readily than small letters." 

 In lists of species where every line may be considered a new sentence, 

 the initial capital is justifiable; though where they follow a genus, 

 as in most lists and catalogues, a repetition of the genus is implied 

 and the lower case letter is preferable. I can scarcel}' agree with Mr. 

 Kirby and do not find e. g. that the recent Brooklyn List of Lepidop- 

 tera, or Mr. Grote's latest List (where capitals are uniformly used) 

 have any advantage in perspicuity over the latter's earlier lists (where 

 small letters are used according to the ordinary rules), or Mj. Fer- 

 nald's catalogue of Tortricidse (where small letters are uniformly used 

 e.xcept in quotations). These last lists are in every way preferable, 

 both for neatness and the saving of space. It is doubtful whether the 

 prodigal capitalizers in America have been influenced by the reason 

 Mr. Kirby urges. The fashion is rather an unconscious development 

 of the legitimate capitalizing of so many butterfly names taken from 



It is already adopted by some Lepidopterists even, as Walsingham and Femald. 



