Nomenclature and Priority. XVil 
we do not know at this day to what species his observations 
apply.” 
Of Borkhausen, M. Guenée writes:—‘“ As to the specific 
portion it is very unequal. The descriptions of moderate 
length are faithful enough for the species which the author has 
seen in nature, but it is to be wished that all were in this 
position. Inspired by the desire to give a complete work 
Borkhausen took all the Noctue which appeared to be wanting 
in his collection from authors who had preceded him, and 
described them on trust. You can tell what a wonderful muddle 
was bound to result from this exploit ; it is not rare in fact to 
find the same Noctua under two, three, and even four different 
names. Happily, it is pretty easy to distinguish these borrowed 
descriptions, though the author had not the frankness to acknow- 
ledge them ; but this research renders very troublesome the 
study of his work, which owes to this circumstance as well as 
the imperfection of its plan the neglect into which it has 
fallen.” 
Of Iiliger, M. Guenée remarks, that in discussing the 
synonymy of different authors, “Illiger has not always been 
any more accurate, and it would be difficult to say whether he 
has cleared up or mystified the most.” 
It would be tedious to prolong such quotations. The mere 
titles of some of the works disclose the circumstance that fugi- 
tive productions of several countries are bearing a part in over- 
turning our nomenclature, being vouched for some obsolete 
names bestowed without any system and under circumstances 
which surely do not merit that points should be strained in their 
favour. M. Breyer has remarked that “the greatest number 
of these untimely changes came about from investigating or 
rather from bringing again into memory works without serious 
scientific merit.” 
Mr. M‘Lachlan, to whom I probably do no wrong in styling 
him the most uncompromising of my opponents, agrees that the 
writers who bring up the old names “in their reverence for old 
names raise ghosts, not entities; in other words, they seek to 
overthrow names thoroughly substantiated to give place to 
others, nine-tenths of which have the merest shadow of a right 
to the superior position their admirers would allot to them— 
names that should sink into oblivion or rest quietly in the list 
of species indeterminate.”* 
* Entom. Monthly Mag. vol. viii. p. 40. See also Mon. Brit. Caddis- 
flies ; Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond. 8rd ser. vol. v. p. 2, note. [In “ Trichoptera 
of the European Fauna,” p. 100 (May, 1875), Mr. M‘Lachlan remarks cf 
several not identified species of Phryganea, described by authors from the 
time of Linné up to 1830”:—“ It is just possible that some of these may 
hereafter be made clear, but for the majority I consider it hopeless and 
useless to indulge in speculations as to what may have been intended.” ] 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. 1875.—PART I. (MAY.) b 
