108 MEAGRE DESCEIPTIONS OF SOME NEW SPECIES, &c. 



contemporarv genus, Colias ; so we have also Colias Argante, Hubner, and as his genera Phcebis and Murtia are also contemporary with 

 the above, aiid embrace insects structurally the same as in his Catopsilia and Colias, we then also have Phabis Argante, Hubner, and 

 Murtia Argante, Hubner, and later Dr. Boisduval placed Argante in his genus Callidryas, where we have Callidryas Argante of that 

 author. Again, of Parargc Maera, Linnaeus' species : During the time that has elapsed since Linnaeus first described it as Papilio 

 Maera, it has been Dira Maera, Pararge Maera, Satyrus Maera, Lasiommala Maera, Hipjiarchia Maera and Amecera Maera. Is this not 

 enough to condemn a system which could only have had its foundation on personal vanity? It is a very convenient thing for the 

 author of a new genus founded, in most instances, on some infinitesimal point, to place in it the species of Linnaeus, Fabricius, Hubner, 

 etc., etc., and then to altadi his own name to each species so pirated, or else to resurrect some obsolete or forgotten genus and to crowd 

 into it the species of various authors, living and dead, and behind each such combination to place the name of the industrious researcher 

 who exhimied from the dust on the top shelf of some library the doubtful genus. This procedure is precisely analogous to that of a sign- 

 painter placing a picture of Rembrandt's in a frame of somebody or other's make, and erasing the artist's name from the picture and 

 the maker's from the back of the frame, and then putting his own more in\portant name across the face of both picture and frame, and 

 of course rendering both valueless by tbe hideous defacement. 



The specific name is and always will be the abiding one, always standing intact, the one by which we designate the object, though 

 bandied from genus to genus ; the generic name is ephemeral, — a thing, as it were, of to-day — therefore it is of the utmost consecjuence 

 that the authority for the species be given, doubly n«cessary on the account of the hosts of synonyms which, with frightful recklessness, 

 ambitious aspirants are continually overloading science. 



As regards the " catalogues which are always at hand," that may be so in large cities blessed with such Entomological Libraries as 

 that of the Acad. Nat. Se. of Philadelphia, or the Peabody Institute of Baltimore, etc., or where the student fortunately possesses ample 

 means to enable him to obtain all the requisite literature ; but to the less fortunate, but perhaps eipially zealous student, who neither 

 lives in a large city nor is blessed (or cursed, as demagogues preach,) with wealth, it would be in the highest degree inconvenient, for 

 when we see the species' name we want to know something about it, why so named, where found, etc., — facts which generally are only 

 fully recorded in the original description, and which we like to see ourselves and not depend entirely on others, however reliable. 



As the learned Dr. says, " whether the author's name remains connected permanently with his observation, or not, is a 

 matter of small importance." Unfortunately, were that same name not to the species many and many an error now rectified would be 

 still undetected; the ill with the good we must lake, and tolerate the pitiful vanity that intiuences some to consider that the name placed 

 behind their species should be printed in golden (brazen! letters, in order to eventually arrive at the truth. Finally, I would add that 

 not only should the author of the specific name be added, but also the work, vol. and page in which his species was first described should 

 be cited ; this would save many precious hours to those who, too often, are obliged to encroach on time that should be devote<l to lucra- 

 tive pursuits, in order to pursue their unremunerative but lieloved and fascinating studies. 



Feb. 22, 1875. 



