Nomenclature and Priority. . XXXiil 
being :—“‘ Sibylla’ is Camilla; ‘Camilla’ is Lucilla ; ‘ Lucilla’ 
is Sappho; ‘Sappho’ is Aceris. ‘Camilla’ is Sibylla; ‘Sibylla’ 
is Prorsa; Prorsa is before the commencement of our nomen- 
clature. The early nomenclature is an exhilarating study ! 
There is not one of the books above quoted which was not 
already antiquated in the time of our grandfathers. ... . This 
farrago of disagreement at present lies concealed from those 
who do not search for it. But for the circumstance that Mr. 
Kirby had (when he wrote his Catalogue) refused to go behind 
1767, we should now be in the thick of the contentions I have 
just exposed, and hundreds of similar ones on questions of the 
same importance. Jf ‘Camilla’ be restored for our Sibylla, we 
have the whole avalanche upon us.” 
It is impossible in a paper such as this to do more than 
give instances to show how this change confuses the nomen- 
clature of Kirby’s Catalogue, and Staudinger’s as well. Any- 
one can discover for himself a large collection of similar cases 
among the long-discovered species; and I must not delay over 
this portion of the subject. 
I must maintain that the difference in the date taken for 
starting-point does not explain the existence of discrepancies 
between Kirby’s list and Staudinger’s; because, although it 
happens that Staudinger and Kirby do print different names be- 
cause of the different starting-points which they accept, yet not 
only does that circumstance account for comparatively speaking 
a very small number of the discrepancies, but in point of fact there 
are so many obscure names in the books of 1758—1767 that 
the two authors’ disagreements are largely increased in number 
when that period is taken into the account. We get a spice 
here of the “chaos” that writers on synonymy frequently men- 
tion. The period before and long after 1767 was the infancy 
of entomology, but before 1767 was certainly its toothless 
babyhood. The British Association Rules still forbid recourse 
to the names of that period; but the two active catalogue-writers 
on the Lepidoptera are now agreed in favour of taking 1758 
as the starting-point. We are thus in the position, for the first 
time, of seeing what kind of names these are which have lain 
hid so long. I think there will not be much doubt in the mind 
of those who handle the question that the names prior to 1767 
are of the strictest sect of the unrecognizables, and (as I have 
convinced myself by some very distasteful labour) that agree- 
ment in favour of using them will increase the confusion. | 
Mr. Kirby says:—‘‘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.” 
I am puzzled by Mr. Kirby’s use of the phrase “alleged 
discrepancies.” If the discrepancies are alleged only, and not 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. 1875.—PART I. (MAY.) c 
