98 



to the ground when it is reaUsed that Schrank in his Fauna 

 Boica, in 1801, made antiopa the type of the genus Papilio. Of 

 this fact ScuDDER was aware, but to his eternal credit he con- 

 tinued to employ the term in accordance with immemorial 

 usage. It is obvious that so long as such subversions are pos- 

 sible, no systematic work can be regarded as permanent, and 

 thus, not only is fixity of nomenclature made impossible, but the 

 work of the systematist is rendered discouraging, and is apt to 

 become half-hearted, and sometimes perhaps careless and in- 

 correct. Not that I have any wish to exaggerate the importance 

 of the systematist. I always feel that we (if I may dare to 

 count myself among them) perform for science the useful, but 

 humble, functions of the housemaid ; for much of our time is. 

 spent in laboriously tid3dng up the litter and confusion that 

 other people have made, whether through the inevitable force 

 of circumstances, or through their owoi carelessness or laziness,, 

 and in thus clearing a space in which the more showy and more 

 permanent, and perhaps also more important, forms of work 

 may be done. Still, even this is a point which cannot be passed 

 over in absolute silence, for anything which is Hkely to añect the 

 quahty of necessary work is not without a certain importance. 



But it may be argued that names which can be traced back 

 to the tenth edition of Linneus are at any rate fixed and per- 

 manent. Granting that this were so, the number of species 

 afiected would be comparatively small, but even this is not 

 universally true. It is sometimes discovered that we have been 

 using a Linnean name for many decades in a different sense 

 from that which Linneus intended, and years of confusion 

 result. I will only refer to the notorious instance of the Lycsenid 

 argus, but it is far from being an isolated case. I have heard it 

 argued that to retain such a name for the species to which it 

 had been for more than half a century universally applied, 

 would involve a sacrifice of truth ; I confess that this argument 

 leaves me absolutely unmoved, but may add that no sacrifice 

 of truth, or of anything else except confusion, would be in- 

 volved if for the future the species were known as " argus 

 auctorum," instead of " argus Linneus." The fundamental 

 misconception which is at the root of all such objections, and 

 even more obviously so in the case of emendations, is that there 



