59 



pressed and published by the Secretary of the London Ento- 

 mological Society. I am also able to enclose a " first proof " of 

 a resolution adopted by that Society for presentation to the 

 International Congress, and I sincerely hope that you may see 

 your way to support it. The main point I would urge is the 

 necessity for some clear definition of what is or is not a valid 

 name, and what corrections are to be permitted. It seems to 

 me that the principle of priority in nomenclature is all-important 

 — for what is the temporary convenience of a few generations of 

 zoologists in using habitually accepted names, as compared with 

 the value of precision and finality in the enduring life of scien- 

 tific study ? It is impossible to eliminate all meaningless names 

 as invalid ; too many nonsense names have been given in the 

 past, and have been fully accepted. Such a practice, however 

 undesirable, will assuredly be repeated from time to time, but 

 the line of recognition should surely be drawn short of mere 

 alphabetical variations of names which mean nothing. Such a 

 system is equivalent to, or even inferior to, the use of numerals. 

 Such names cannot be remembered, and must lead to constant 

 confusion in literary references. The term " nomenclature " 

 cannot rightly be applied to them, and the authority of the 

 Congress should be bespoken to outrule them absolutely as 

 invalid, and to recommend this course to the next International 

 Congress on Zoology through the International Zoological Com- 

 mission. 



Another very objectionable set of names (in this case generic) 

 has been perpetrated by the late G. W. Kirkaldy — " Ochisme," 

 " Marichisme," " Dolichisme," etc., ad nausea))!. I enclose a 

 memorandum of the sample {Entomologist, 37, 1904). These 

 names are merely mongrel creations of names with an English 

 meaning, not classically formed, and surely invalid from their 

 inception. If by any rule such are to be admitted, we 

 may expect " Buttapatta," " Kowcatcheria," " Celavasandcria," 

 " Mafoia," etc., etc. They are infinitely worse than mere non- 

 sense names, which, as I have said, cannot now be dealt with in 

 the same summary manner to which in my opinion these lay 

 themselves open. 



It has been suggested that such series of absurd variation 

 have been invented for the special purpose of putting the advo- 



