2l8 



taneous publication — in the Diagnostic Journal^ — of the names 

 of new genera and species (without diagnoses) should be con- 

 sidered sufficient for acceptance ; but this exception should be 

 limited strictly to separately published monographical work, 

 and not be extended to such cases as publication in the 

 Proceedings of Societies or the inclusion of new descriptions 

 in the midst of some general work. New names, in cases of 

 preoccupation, might also be accepted without a repetition of 

 original diagnoses ; but full reasons for the proposed changes 

 should be given, together with references to the original de- 

 scriptions. Figures, if required by the author, should be pub- 

 lished only at his expense, and might, perhaps, be prohibited 

 altogether, on the score of delay. Full illustrations, with ampler 

 descriptions, might be published in other journals. Publication 

 in the special journals need not prevent the appearance of other 

 (possibly more amplified) descriptions elsewhere ; but the name 

 should carry the date of its pubhcation in the Diagnostic Journal, 

 even though it may have appeared previously in some other 

 publication. Any such rule could not, of course, be retro- 

 spective. The Journal could be indexed at the end of each year, 

 and would constitute an Entomological Record for publications 

 in that country. The choice of any particular Diagnostic 

 Journal, for publication, would be optional. 



We may now consider objections that may be brought 

 forward against the proposed scheme. In discussing it with 

 other biologists, I find that the first inclination is to waive it 

 aside as hopelessly impracticable ; but, when pinned down 

 to formulate their objections, all that they can bring forward 

 is the question of vested interests, and this objection I believe 

 to be fallacious. Why should the adoption of such a scheme 

 prejudice, as has been suggested, the existing journals and 

 publications of various Societies ? In the opinion of many 

 naturalists, such publications would be vastly reheved by the 

 omission of strings of new names and weary pages of purely 

 diagnostic matter. On the other hand, more space would be 

 afforded for the description of life-histories and other interesting 

 biological observations, which would assuredly make them more 

 readable. Many authors, also, would publish, in the Proceedings 

 of Societies or elsewhere, fuller and less formal descriptions 



