Nomenclature and Priority. ill 
in 1840 Boisduval published the second edition of his ‘“ Index 
Methodicus,” in which he expressly declined to supersede 
names in use by names which had been forgotten.* 
What was the state of things here in 1842? Entomological 
science, though not still in its infancy, was yet receiving the 
attention of a limited number. The movement which has since 
made entomology the most popular of all the sciences was, 
however, near its birth. Stephens’ “Illustrations” and Curtis’ 
“ British Entomology” were (so far as they ever were) one quite, 
the other nearly, completed ; but neither do those authors com- 
municate any information on the state of development which 
entomology had attained in other countries, nor does it appear to 
have been the case that English naturalists (whether authors or 
readers) had any knowledge worth speaking about on the subject. 
England, however, was the country which had the deepest 
interest in securing an uniform nomenclature. The position 
of isolation, which to-day remains as a geographical fact alone, 
was in 1842 a real separation from community in study and 
language, in entomology as in everything else. The countries 
of the Continent rubbed along together, but if English natu- 
ralists were to be aw courant with the state of science, or 
(vulgarly speaking) were to have a finger in the pie at all, it 
was imperative that they and the naturalists of the Continent 
should use the same nomenclature. What difficulties met them 
at the outset? Here is the well-known description in the 
language of Mr. Strickland :— 
“Tf an English zoologist visits the museums and converses 
with the professors of France, he finds that their scientific 
language is almost as foreign to him as their vernacular. 
Almost every specimen which he examines is labelled by a title 
which is unknown to him, and he feels that nothing short of a 
continued residence in that country can make him conversant 
with her science. IPfhe proceeds thence to Germany and Russia 
he is again ata loss; bewildered everywhere amidst the con- 
fusion of nomenclature, he returns in surprise to his own country 
and to the museums and books to which he is accustomed.” 
These facts being recognized, the English naturalists set 
themselves to find the remedy. ‘There was little doubt that in 
the majority of cases where the English names differed from 
the Continental names the former were wrong. The British 
Associationt appointed a committee, and the committee (adopt- 
* Index Methodicus, 2nd ed. vi. 
I have discovered in the Entom. Mag. vol. i. p. 225 (1833), the phrase 
“the now universally received law of priority ;” but the writer’s wish was, 
it would seem, father to the thought. Instances to the contrary might be 
multiplied ; it is worth while to mention Denny’s Monographia Anoplu- 
rorum Britanniz, published im 1842. An inspection of this work seems 
to show that the author could never have heard of “ priority” at all. 
+ The meeting in 1842 was held at Manchester. The rules are some- 
times called the Manchester Rules. 
a2 
