Proceedings, 1915. 



Farther on, the same authorities say: — 



'■ May we be allowed to ask the attention of scientitic authors and 

 nomenclators to the following considerations? 



" I. Although the name of an insect is to be regarded as a mere 

 name, and not as a compendious description, yet it is desirable that it 

 should denote some peculiarity or express some property or habit ])er- 

 taining to that particular insect. 



" 2. It is convenient to form generic names from the Greek, specific 

 names from the Latin. 



'■ 3. That the names should be formed on the analogy of existing 

 Greek or Latin words ; but that it is advisable to maintain a uniformity 

 of termination throughout each tribe to assist the memory. 



"4. Names taken from localities commonly become^ inappropriate 

 from the occurrence of the species in other places ; and names taken from 

 persons should not be lightly applied." 



It will be seen from the foregoing that the rules apply to the first 

 naming of a species, and that when once a species has received a name 

 with a published description of the object, whether the name be appro- 

 priate or not, or wrongly spelled, so long as that name has not been used 

 before to designate an individual of the same genus, it must be used, 

 imaltered, by any one referring to that species. It is not even permis- 

 sible to alter the ending of the word to make it agree with what the 

 user thinks would be correct. As an example of this, I may adduce the 

 case of Deilephila gallii. There can be no doubt that when Rottemburg 

 named the species in 1775 he meant to call it " galii," but by some means, 

 probably a misprint, it was spelt " gallii." Though several subsequent 

 authorities have referred to the species as " galii," in would-be correction, 

 the law of priority has stepped in and the original printed word " gallii " 

 is now accepted as being the correct one. 



One of the most important nomenclatural movements which has ever 

 taken place, and one to which science owes much, was the preparation of 

 the so-called Stricklandian Code, also known as the British Association 

 Code, prepared in 1842-43 by a committee of the British Association for 

 the Advancement of Science. . This Code, together with the Linnsean 

 Code (1751). forms the basis of all subsequent study of the subject. 



Mr. Raphael Blanchard (Paris) proposed a Code which was adopted 

 b}' the first and the second International Congresses in 1889 and 1892; 

 but it evidently did not find general acceptance, for in 1894 the German 

 Zoological Society adopted a Code of its own, and other countries were 

 following various different codes. The question was brought up at the 

 succeeding triennial International Congress in 1895, when an Inter- 

 national Commission of five members was appointed. The Commission 

 was afterwards increased to fifteen members. This larger Commission 

 reported progress to the Fifth International Congress, held in Berlin, 

 1901, and the Code then proposed was adopted. The Code covers the 



