Nomenclature and Priority. Xl 
Linnean and even the Fabrician species “ would have to dis- 
appear from our nomenclature.” Von Harold insists* that the 
greater part of Linné’s, Scopoli’s and Fabricius’ descriptions, 
with others of the same period, are “ plainly and beyond ques- 
tion insufficient for identification,” and “ fail entirely to differ- 
entiate the species.” ‘‘ Who,” he demands, “is in such a 
position that he can with certainty point out in the works of 
Linné, Herbst or Fabricius, anything more than that a given 
beetle is a Harpalus, a Haltica, a- Nitidula,” ete.? Dr. 
Staudinger agreest that “names given by the old authors 
belong to such and such species only by a sort of tradition.” 
Mr. Edwards remarks{ :—‘ The old authors had described but 
a few hundred species, and their descriptions were of the 
briefest. How brief an average example from Linnzus will 
show—‘ Papilio Troilus; wings tailed, black ; fore wings with 
pale marginal spots, hind wings beneath with fulvous spots ;’ 
a description applicable perhaps to fifty species of Papilio.” 
It would only be overlaying the case to cite more instances 
after this “average example.” <A chief objection to restoring 
names attached to the oldest descriptions, then, is that as a 
body those descriptions are unrecognizable, and, in consequence, 
the names brought forward on the faith of them as a rule are 
of doubtful accuracy. 
No person can demonstrate whether a given identification is 
wrong or right. Guesses decide the matter; and nothing can 
compel the list editors to make the same guess. Thereupon 
they make different guesses; you have a confusion that does 
not admit of being reconciled either by proof or persuasion. 
The infirmity we have just been considering attaches to the 
best of the old descriptions, and for that matter will be found 
to attach in all probability to many of the descriptions published 
at the present day. Von Harold has this further passage§ on 
_ the point: —‘‘ A description absolutely sufficient, availing for 
all time, I hold generally, in the greatest number of cases, to 
be an impossibility ; for one can never know beforehand what 
character or what individual distinction we shall perchance in 
the future depend on for distinguishing from some closely- 
related species one which first makes its appearance later, 
which we do not know in nature, but only from authors’ 
description. Anyone who has occupied himself with drawing 
up analytical tables knows right well that separation of species 
often depends on this or that character, which in the best 
descriptions frequently remains unnoticed, so that such a 
species cannot be classified at all.” 
* Coleopterologische Hefte, vi. pp. 45, 46. 
{ Cat. 1871, pref. xvi. 
ft Canadian Ent. vol. v. p. 23. 
§ Coleopterologische Hefte, vi. p. 50. 
See some similar observations by Professor Westwood in Mag. N. H. 
vol, ix. p. 561. 
