Nomenclature and Priority. XX1X 
of equal authority come occasionally to conflicting decisions ; 
and that takes place in administering a fixed law when all which 
the judges have to do is apply it. But only conceive what 
condition of things we should come to if judges were to begin 
deciding upon rights by the light of discretion only, doing 
what they considered desirable and untrammelled by a positive 
law ! 
When M. Candéze has rejected a prior name on the ground 
that it has been long disused,—which he has shown us is a 
reason he considers ‘‘ good,” why should another author abstain 
from bringing that name forward, on the ground that it is the 
prior name—which is a reason he in turn considers “ good” ? 
This surely is the kind of decision which might properly be 
described by Dr. Sharp as one ‘‘ to be reversed on the first 
appeal ;” but Dr. Sharp’s criticisms could not (from considera- 
tions of chronology) have had reference to M. Candéze’s pro- 
posal... Bad as I consider the present practice has proved to be 
for our nomenclature, I think it is only as King Log to King 
Stork in comparison with the principle (for such only can 
it be termed) of having no rule but what the author chooses. 
We are in search of certainty in our nomenclature. How can 
it be said that rejecting or bringing up names on grounds of 
discretion will ever bring certainty ? 
I said that the line which M. Candéze adopts would take 
him further than the point which he reaches. It is impossible 
to stay where he leaves off; and I think the rest should natu- 
rally follow. If an author’s object be sometimes to bring 
forward old names, and sometimes to reject them when there 
is xo substantial difference in the circumstances, we must grant 
at once the proposition that rules for nomenclature would be 
out of place. But if, in bringing forward or rejecting the old 
names, the author acts upon a principle which admits of being 
stated, I cannot imagine in what respect his work is not greatly 
improved and advantaged by having the support of rules and 
reasons. It would appear to me that a compilation of synonymy 
not so supported remains open to be misread and misunderstood 
in every way, and that whenever its conclusions might be 
attacked the attacker would experience an easy victory, because 
no person could say on the author’s behalf what his grounds of 
procedure or modus operandi were. If these considerations be 
well grounded, the old names, if they are to be rejected, must 
be rejected on a principle; and I do not gather from M. Can- 
déze’s observations that he entertains any rooted objections to 
the principle of discarding names totally disused. 
Trreconcilable Confusion must continue to result from the 
present Condition of Things. 
Mr. W. F. Kirby has contributed to the “Canadian Entomo- 
logist” (vol. vi. p. 196) a short but very important paper on 
