1916] Priority in Family Names 93 



is I think irrefutable. Anyone who thinks otherwise will cer- 

 tainly be cured of this delusion if he will read Stephen's intro- 

 duction to his Catalogue of 1829, where he says in effect that he 

 does not care to take either the time or trouble to prepare 

 descriptions of the numerous new genera he has estabHshed in 

 his catalogue but will leave that task to anyone who feels 

 inclined to undertake it, with the inference that it could be 

 done by someone whose time is less valuable than his. I am 

 sure no sane person would think of using Stephen's names after 

 reading that preface, or perhaps I should say of crediting them 

 to Stephens. If the Zoologists as a whole are not willing to 

 undertake the preparation of such a validated bibliography I 

 can see no reason why the entomologists should not do so inde- 

 pendently. It would then be up to the Zoologists to endorse 

 the list or to give their reasons for not doing so. What we 

 most need now is stability and that we can never have while 

 each individual entomologist is free to accept as valid or to 

 reject as invalid the numerous uncertain papers and books that 

 appeared in the early days of our science and may still be 

 imminent. 



