24 Psyche [February 



SPECIFIC NAMES EEPEATED IN THE LINNEAN GENUS 



FOEMICA. 



By Caklo Emery, 

 Bologiia, Ital}^ 



My friend Mr. Donisthorpe published, nearly three years ago,i 

 an article on a well-known list of ants from the environs of Nice, 

 inserted by Leach in 1825 into the "Zoological Record." Mr. 

 Donisthorpe has been no more successful than myself in solving 

 the eniguias which, under the title of descriptions, were submitted 

 by the old English author to his readers. 



I should have had no occasion to revert to the matter had not Mr. 

 Donisthorpe decided to replace the name Formica picea Nylander 

 (1846) by F. transliaul-asica Nassonow (1889), because the name 

 F. picea I^each antedates F. picea Nyl., and notwithstanding the 

 fact that both insects, in our present nomenclature, have been 

 placed in very dillerent genera. 



To be consistent, however, it w^ould be necessary to change many 

 other names, and, not to go beyond the list of Leach's names, also 

 the following: 



F. affinis Ijeach (1825), Myrmicinarum genus? and F. affinis 

 Le Guillou (1841), FolyrJiachis, have priority over F. ajfinis 

 Schenck (1851), Lafiim. 



F. teMareipes Leach (1825), Myrmicinarum genus? has priority 

 over F. tesfaceipes F. Smith, Camponoivs. 



There are, I believe, certain principles wliich should be applied 

 only cum grano sails, i. e., only when they are practical and useful, 

 and should be abandoned when they merely create embarrassment 

 and confusion. Such is the principle of priority in zoological no- 

 menclature, which certain entomologists have pushed to most re- 

 gi'ettable extremes. 



For ray part, I shall continue to designate Formica picea by the 

 name which was applied to it by Nylander in 1846 ; Lasius ajfinis 

 Schenck and Camponotus tesiaceipes F. Smith, by the names con- 

 secrated by the usage of more than half a century, and I count 



^The Bntom. Record, Vol. 30, p. 8-9 (1918). 



