Nomenclature and Priority. Xi 
will readily appreciate the association of the words ‘ohne hast’ 
with ‘ohne rast.’ Let them recollect that in these disputed 
points we wish to obtain a decision that shall be absolute, and 
not one that may be reversed on the first appeal. To enable 
us to do this, we must in each case carefully collect the evi- 
dence, and consider it under the hehe, of reasonable and 
admitted principles.” 
Dr. Sharp must decide for himself how far Candéze, Leconte, 
_ Westwood, Wallace, Bates, Edwards and others (with whose 
names I can supply him from the list of “the impatient ones” ) 
merit the appellation of “men of science.” That, however, is 
his matter. I am content to speak as one of the “collectors,” 
and therefore desire explicitly to assert that everyoue, who 
comes forward with coherent reasons, has “a just voice in this 
matter ;” and the reasons which he may adduce, be they bad 
or good, are (it seems to me) not vanquished by terming their 
sponsor ‘fan impatient one,” nor even by charging that he 
“proclaims we must have a way of settling things right off.” 
It is pretty evident from the rest of the passage that Dr. Sharp 
has never made himself adequately acquainted with the tenets 
of those he was addressing in this peculiar vein. The proposal 
to which Dr. Sharp alludes was and is founded on principle 
and supported by reasons; and to my surprise I find that Dr. 
Sharp’s answer amounts to the statement that he thinks dif- 
ferently. That is scarcely, as I submit to entomologists, a 
good foundation for comments like the one just quoted, which 
have a strong family likeness to an avowal that those of Dr. 
Sharp’s opinion are men of science, and those of the contrary 
opinion something different. I venture to think that when the 
reasoning on which they rely has been demolished, it will be 
time for Dr. Sharp to indulge in the inquiry whether those 
who meet him in argument are “‘men of science.” While their 
reasoning remains unassailed, that seems little relevant to the 
matter under discussion. 
The Oldest Descriptions are unrecognizable. 
Having endeavoured to point out that the movement—being 
based on the sober and strictly-defined principle of convenience 
upholding accord—does not owe its birth to “impatience” or 
frolics of any description, I pass on to the question of fact 
which must be satisfactorily settled before we can do good by 
these discussions. 
Having to bring forward the oldest name that they could 
find, entomologists searched the oldest books in which to find 
it. Their task was to see what insects the names in those 
books represented. From the way these old books are some- 
times regarded, one could understand anybody who was inno- 
cent of all acquaintance with them, contracting the notion that 
they are grand old works, containing stores of valuable facts, 
