Nomenclature and Priority. XXXV 
would not have appeared. This, I presume, means that Mr. 
Kirby has made errors in his identifications, and has that 
brought home to him when he finds that another has decided 
differently. This is not in any way a pleasant discovery. The 
superseding of names in use by others, which are abandoned 
when a fresh author says something different, is the very prac- 
tice which has proved so serious for our nomenclature ; and it 
is to be regretted that heretofore this occurrence has been 
treated so much as a matter of course. One author thinks he 
sees a likeness in an old description, and brings it out as 
identified. ‘Three months after (it may be) some one else sees 
a better likeness, and that is brought out in its turn, to serve 
till something more attractive still is lighted on. 
We have quitted the subject of the old descriptions, but 
perhaps it is as well to look again at them from this new point 
of view. What light does all this throw on the character of 
the descriptions which admit of such conflicting interpretations ? 
We have modern author after modern author (not at all igno- 
rant, but on the contrary, having trained himself for this special 
work) finding grounds for bringing out new identifications. 
Yet the grounds which they make sufficient for upsetting 
names in use are so little worth, that they are ready at the 
shortest notice to withdraw their identifications in favour of a 
new one. The reason is this, the books do not furnish any 
good grounds. I do not believe Mr. Kirby has identified any 
species dissimilar from the description. If he had done that, 
it would be a far different affair ; but, on the contrary, I take it 
that Mr. Kirby had fair grounds for his identifications and read 
the descriptions as well, on the whole, as they truly admitted 
of being read. Both authors have reasons of some sort, but 
nearly all is mere speculation. ‘The difficulty being caused by 
facts (not rules, or theories), such disagreements must con- 
tinually crop up, and there is no possible way of reconciling 
them, while recourse to the old descriptions is permitted. 
As to placing justly any reliance on Herr Werneburg, or 
vouching him as an authority in disputed cases, surely this is 
not to be entertained. Herr Werneburg has devoted himself 
to this study, and is responsible for a number of our irrecon- 
cilable differences ; but as for Herr Werneburg’s work bringing 
us to certainty, it is almost a shock to hear the suggestion 
made. Dr. Speyer long ago* characterized Herr Werneburg’s 
work as having taken from “the generally unintelligible and 
vague descriptions and defective plates of the Patres Entomo- 
logiz, identifications which hung on the most precarious holding 
work on Staudinger’s first Catalogue (1861), as will be found stated in the 
Appendix (p. 145). Mr. Kirby was not working solely by the light of 
nature, for he and Staudinger were starting fair in 1862; and of all 
Staudinger’s references up to that point Kirby had the use and advantage, 
* Stett. Ent. Zeitung, 1865—66, p. 51. 
c2 
