XXxv1 a W. A. Lewis on 
points,” and Herr Werneburg’s Beitrage must be considered 
—not a repertory of truths (as I am submitting), but an assort- 
ment of speculations—like the parts of which we complain of 
the two Catalogues themselves. a 
Before leaving Mr. Kirby, let us take a new look at certain 
facts. Mr. Kirby gives the explanations which have been 
quoted, to account for his differences from Staudinger. We 
will take a familiar instance, the one originally used by me 
three years ago,* and test these explanations. Kirby and 
Staudinger’s Catalogues (as they stand) differ on the names of 
one-seventh of the British Rhopalocera. Since reading Mr. 
Kirby’s explanation (which appeared to hold out hopes that 
the differences could be reconciled), I have gone through the 
synonymy again, and have to report that whereas, starting from 
different dates, Kirby and Staudinger differed in one-seventh, 
now that they both start from 1758 (taking also into account 
some fresh identifications by Mr. Kirby), the differences have 
risen to one-sixth of the number. When the two lists first 
appeared, they changed seventeen of our species’ names; some 
additions to the “corrections” having been made, now they 
change twenty. The common starting-point of 1758 has not 
reduced the number of these differences, but added to them ; 
and the fact will have interest for British entomologists, who 
would have been truly glad to see a real explanation forth- 
coming. As for the other reasons, in nearly all the cases of 
difference Kirby and Staudinger have had the same materials 
and made the same reference to page and plate. But where 
more “literature” is quoted, it is almost always quoted by 
Mr. Kirby himself. 
I conclude that it will be self-deception on our part if we 
expect a reconciliation of the names, unless one author makes 
a simple surrender of his opinions, retiring in favour of his 
rival in cases where they differ. Even that step would be 
eventually ineffectual, for the next list-writer may be relied on 
to ferret out such points again. 
The foregoing remarks have been directed to exposing 
existing evils and considering some opinions of entomologists. 
Therefore, whatever proposal I may found on them (and 
whether the expedient which I am about to suggest receive 
approval or disapproval), the points already dealt with will 
remain unaffected. 
There is a Remedy in a Rule which does equal Justice. 
With this preface I proceed to indicate the reform which I 
look for. 
The object is to exclude the names which cause confusion— 
that is, the names which are attached to descriptions doubtfully 
* Discussion of Priority, &c., p. 83. 
