XXX +. W. A. Lewis on 
* Discrepancies in Recent Lists of Lepidoptera,” which is as 
follows :— 
*‘'The opponents of the law of priority in nomenclature have 
taken occasion, both in England and America, to argue against 
the restoration of obsolete names, on the ground that the names 
employed in my Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera do not 
always harmonize with those used in Staudinger’s Catalogue 
of European Lepidoptera. Although this argument looks 
plausible at first sight, a little reflection will probably convince 
many that it is baseless. We may leave genera out of the 
question now, as Staudinger has not attempted to grapple with 
the difficulties which they present; but as regards species, it 
must be remembered,—lIst, that Staudinger starts from 17458, 
instead of 1767, and that I should have done the same had 
I investigated the question fully when I commenced my work ; 
and 2nd, that Staudinger, working at European Lepidoptera 
only, was necessarily better acquainted with the special litera- 
ture relating to them than myself. Had I selected 1758, and 
possessed Werneburg’s “Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde” at 
the time I was writing my own Catalogue, or had Staudinger’s 
new Catalogue been published in time for me to verify the 
references contained in it, I think I may say that many of the 
alleged discrepancies would have disappeared, although, in 
some cases, I may have made use of materials which Staudinger 
does not appear to have employed, or may have seen reason to 
disagree with him as to the determination of certain species. 
Unless two authors have exactly the same materials to work 
with, or one copies from the other, no rules will be sufficient to 
insure their absolute agreement in every case ; but by the strict 
law of priority, the chances of disagreement are reduced to a 
minimum.” 
I presume I am to consider myself included in the descrip- 
tion of ‘opponents of the law of priority.’ (The phrase is 
convenient as a nomen triviale, though it is defective as a 
diagnosis.) Now, I certainly have used the discrepancies in 
Kirby’s and Staudinger’s Catalogues as furnishing arguments 
against the endeavour to restore obsolete names founded by 
the early writers ; and I have vouched them (with other con- 
siderations) as proving an important part of the case set up. 
I venture to think that if, on the appearance of the two Cata- 
logues, I had missed drawing attention to the discrepancies as 
they exist, and the causes of them, I should have failed to 
seize what is really a plain conclusion; and also should have 
been rightly chargeable with building up a discussion of words 
and theories instead of dealing with facts. I repeat the ex- 
pression of my opinion that the lessons to be drawn from Mr, 
Kirvy’s and Dr. Staudinger’s Catalogues taken together are in 
the highest degree valuable; from the point of view therefore 
which I occupy, the remarks which Mr. Kirby may offer on 
the matter have a corresponding interest. 
