XXiv *. W. A. Lewis on 
of doubt. ‘The list-writers now seize on points of identification 
which a few years back all persons agreed were insufficient. 
Another consideration remains with reference to the “justice” 
of the case. Some have dealt with this question as though 
authors were the only people concerned. I may be right or 
wrong, but I have grown up in the belief that authors do not 
write books for their own satisfaction or enlightenment, but to 
enlighten or satisfy other people. Ihave not yet learned that 
authors write to enlighten or satisfy other authors alone ; for I 
believe they do not put out of view the large number of readers 
who are content themselves to publish nothing. Now, if the 
nomenclator has rights in the matter, so have other entomologists. 
To subject the whole entomological world to inconvenience and 
disgust without necessity is itself an “injustice” of a bad kind. 
I ask what we have done to deserve that our beautiful science 
should be made a battle-ground for the upholders of different 
fancy systems of synonymy? “Priority” has been aptly termed 
“a hobby.” The bulb mania and the old china mania, and 
others, have their day; and there are fanciers in various depart- 
ments which attract the notice of those who are blessed with 
leisure and have the special taste developed. But we have an 
interest in suppressing the fashion of synonymy-fancying; and 
I entertain the hope (which is brighter than it was) that this 
description of industry will soon not be worth following. 
In parting from the subject of “justice to the nomenclator,” 
I cannot pass by the trenchant writing of Dr. Leconte*:— 
“Tt would seem from some expressions of opinion I have 
seen, but which I forbear to refer to more definitely, that there 
are those that believe that one main object of descriptive 
natural history is to give the authors a sort of proprietary 
interest in the species to which they affix names . . . Such 
ideas are really aspersions on the notions of the great professors 
of unremunerative labour, upon whom science chiefly depends 
for her advancement. The good and true labourers are many ; 
the small and mean minds, who feel honoured at being quoted 
in synonymy, are few.” 
Again:— 
“It is only in descriptive natural history, the lowest and 
most routine work that a man of science has to perform, that 
any association of names with results is possible. In all other 
and higher departments of knowledge, such as Newton with 
gravitation, &c., or, to exemplify from our own departments, 
Linneus, Jussieu, Cuvier and Geoffroy, all these men are 
historically eminent for their labours far more than for attaching 
their names to the objects of their study. With such examples 
of high and honest effort, to be imitated by us in proportion to 
our respective abilities, it is surely an ignoble ambition, and 
certainly an uncommon one, that would aim at distinction by 
* Canadian Ent. vol. vi. p. 203. 
