104 



as "nomina nuda," and against both these suggestions I wish 

 strongly to protest ; they are, first, the case in which a figure 

 is unaccompanied by a description, and secondly, that in which 

 a description is unaccompanied by a figure. With regard to 

 both these points, they seem to me condemned in advance as 

 being much too wide in their application. At most, each case 

 should be judged on its own merits, and names should not be 

 rejected on either ground unless it is impossible to determine, 

 either from internal or external sources, what species is intended, 

 Hiibner's figures, for instance, even when unaccompanied by 

 letterpress, are generally unmistakable, whilst Bergsträsser's, 

 letterpress and all, are often difficult, sometimes hopeless, to 

 determine. The view of the former Congress, that it is "highl}' 

 desirable " that descriptions should be accompanied by a figure, 

 surely goes quite as far as is advisable in this direction. For in 

 fact a figure, even a figure good in itself, may only serve to darken 

 counsel. As an instance I ma}' cite Moore's figure and descrip- 

 tion of the Indian L^^caenid, Polyommatus uriana. Here the 

 author has inadvertently mixed up at least two species under a 

 single name, his description being taken from one, and his figure 

 from another, while his type specimen does not entirely corre- 

 spond with either. If only the one, or only the other, had existed, 

 much confusion would have been saved. There are many cases 

 in which a description alone would be amply sufficient, as, for 

 instance, when a new species is described by reference to one 

 well known, and the points of difference enumerated. There 

 are also many cases, in orders other than the Lepidoptera, in 

 which figures, unless highl}' magnified, would be perfectly use- 

 less. Moreover, if this demand were once admitted (even with- 

 out the impracticable addition of making it retrospective), the 

 amount of illustration required would continually increase, 

 details of structure would be gradually considered essential, and 

 it would at last require many pages and a whole series of plates 

 to describe a new species no whit more effectively than can now 

 often be done in a dozen lines or less with no illustration at all. 

 With regard to names being "available," when the}^ are 

 universally admitted to be "names," there is less to be said, 

 for I have no wish to waste the time of the Congress by touching 

 on points not under dispute. I have aheady suggested an 



