Nomenclature and Priority. XXV1L 
I adopt the correction which attaches to it the name carbonaria, 
which is older by some years, I reject that of punctata, which 
it is proposed to substitute for it as the most legitimate. 
“T by no means ignore the criticisms to which I expose 
myself by acting in this manner, but I think that moderate 
minds will support me, and tbat sooner or later a sort of com- 
promise will rally the greater number. .... I have always 
declared that if sometimes I range myself on the side of the 
reformers,’ sometimes I abide with the ‘ conservators,’ it has 
not been without reasons which I consider good.” 
In this passage we see the doctrine of “ Communis error 
facit jus” carried into practice, and have a clear illustration 
of the way in which it is proposed to work the priority rule. 
Atomaria is the name in use in France, but carbonaria, the 
name in use in Germany, is older; therefore of course car- 
bonaria supersedes atomaria. But punctata is older still. 
Punctata is nowhere in use, therefore punctata must be re- 
jected ; and we retain for the insect the name carbonaria, the 
oldest which is in use. 
Thus M. Candéze treats this case as those who share my 
opinion would treat it. Acting on our principle he naturally 
arrives. at our conclusion. My object, however, now is to 
carry this a step onward, and to show that the considerations 
which have conducted M. Candéze so far must take him 
farther. 
We have seen that M. Candéze declines to bring forward 
a name for many years totally forgotten. He however says 
that we shall find him siding sometimes with the reformers and 
sometimes with those who are in favour of preserving the 
names, and on whichever side it is that he is found it will be 
“for reasons that he considers good.” I hope not to be mis- 
understood in saying that I think this conclusion of M. Candéze 
cannot be justified. Nothing short of that declaration will 
serve, and it would be highly dangerous to be otherwise than 
explicit on the point. 
What is it we are struggling to do? At the present time 
our nomenclature is shifting and uncertain, because successive 
authors change one after another the names that are in use. 
We are struggling to render our nomenclature certain ; that is, 
to establish the names in such a manner that it shall no longer 
be in the competence of successive authors to change them. 
As the case at present stands the labour which A. has expended 
on a given identification is rendered worthless by the later 
labour of B. and C. Both of these again find their conclusion 
rejected because D. arrives at one that is different. Now these 
authors have determined the question by “reasons which they 
consider good.”. It is because what A. “considers” good, B. 
“considers” not good, that B. discards the conclusion that A. 
arrived at. It is because though he may consider that B.’s 
