XXX1i -F\\.. W. A. Lewis on 
Priority,” which I published. As I have no reason to alter 
the language, and the point is of the essence of the controversy, 
I may be forgiven for presenting the case in words then used. 
I said :*—* The cases in which Mr. Kirby and Dr. Staudinger 
now print different names for the same species do not by any 
means make up the total number of cases in which those 
two authors are opposed. Mr. Kirby restricts himself to 1767, 
and restores no names of earlier date; while Dr. Staudinger 
starts from 1758. Now Mr. Kirby, who does not use them, 
cites a prodigious number of “prior” names (given in his 
Catalogue as synonyms), which Dr. Staudinger does not recog- 
nize! The results are not yet felt; because, though he finds 
and identifies the names, Mr. Kirby at present refuses to restore 
them. When he shall publish a list starting from the date 1758 
or 1746, there will be a terrible addition to the number of cases 
in which he and Dr. Staudinger are dragging us different ways.” 
And I gave this instance of the way in which the change of 
Mr. Kirby to 1758 would work :—“ Dr. Staudinger acknow- 
ledges and restores names found in the Museum Ulrice (1764); 
Mr. Kirby does not. If, therefore, ‘ Sibylla’ be found described 
in the Mus. Ulr. (1764) under the name Camilla, Staudinger 
will accept this name, but Kirby will call the butterfly Sibylla 
still. Now Kirby goes to the Mus. Ulr., and there he does 
find ‘ Sibylla’ described under the name Camilla. It is against 
his principle to take names earlier than 1767, so he does not 
change the name, but only quotes Camilla as a (prior) syno- 
nym. Staudinger, meanwhile, who would adopt the name 
Camilla from the Mus. Ulr. without hesitation, fails to recog- 
nize the species there at all! ‘The consequence is that he like- 
wise (in ignorance, or by choice) retains Sibylla as the first 
name. Now, supposing Kirby to be accurate, it is quite clear 
that Staudinger ought to have rejected the name Sibylla, 
L. S. N. (1767), for Camilla, L. M. L. U. (1764). When Mr. 
Kirby publishes a list beginning from 1758 or earlier, he will 
have ‘Sibylla’ under the name Camilla, and thus he and Dr. 
Staudinger will be openly at difference ; they are now disagreed, 
though, under present conditions, the difference does no harm. 
It does not signify whether the former author be right, or the 
latter, or neither. The disagreement between them does the 
mischief ; and, wide as that is now, it seems to be not nearly so 
wide as it will be when the works of both agree on their start- 
ing-point.” 
This was followed by a succession of instances (quotations 
and references being given) where Kirby and Staudinger came 
to different interpretations of a number of names all traditionally 
ascribed to various European butterflies with white-banded 
wings (which cannot be reproduced here); the summary 
* Discussion of Priority, p. 21, 
