iv .. W. A. Lewis on 
ing the principle of priority as the basis) drew up rules which 
had for their first result the suppression of hundreds of names 
in use in this country, and in this country alone. 
The object, then, of the British Association Rules was to 
reconcile the nomenclature of England and the Continent. 
The need to be supplied was agreement on scientific names i 
the cases where the authors in use differed. I take this point 
to be clear, partly from the surrounding circumstances at which 
we have glanced, and no less so from the interpretation which 
the rule of priority for many years on all hands received. 
It would appear not to have occurred to those who framed 
the priority rule that neither the names in use on the Continent 
nor the names in use here should be correct ; and in this con- 
fidence they unsuspectingly formulated their Rule L., that “ the 
name originally given by the describer of a species should 
be permanently retained to the exclusion of all subsequent 
synonyms.” For a period of years the rule received the inter- 
pretation which (as above indicated) it seems certain that it 
was meant to bear. The construction of it to mean that the 
earliest discoverable name shall be adopted to the displace- 
ment of all names in use, never, I believe, originated in this 
country, but has been caught up, as it seems, by some English 
entomologists from those on the Continent who had invented 
that construction. It is quite unbelievable that for twenty 
years the priority rule enacted by the British Association was 
misunderstood in the country where it originated, and where 
those who took part in framing it were continuing their scientific 
labours. 
The Position since the Rule of Priority was made. 
But let us suppose that by the law of 1842 it was intended 
to enact that the earliest discoverable name should supersede 
all others. Well, the originators of the law had not the advan- 
tages which we have. In the first place, their agreement was 
come to in comparative private. ‘There was no endeavour to 
take into the account the practical students who might be con- 
versant with special aspects of the case; and, as a bald fact, 
the matter received no sort of public discussion, of which all 
may satisfy themselves by searching the magazines and journals 
circulating at the time. Irest no especial weight on this cir- 
cumstance ; it is a good thing that naturalists of eminence 
were found to agree ona solution of the difficulty which was 
sadly wanted, and which did effect a practical settlement of our 
nomenclature. But I should omit an important consideration 
if I were to miss pointing out the great difference between 1842 
and 1875. 
In 1842 the domain of entomology appears to have been 
parted out on something of the feudal pattern ; and the followers 
of Curtis and Stephens respectively were not only well content 
