Nomenclature and Priority. xli 
and will thus make accord permanent, while it will admit of 
justification upon principle. And that a law which proves 
in truth salutary will run little danger of being disregarded. 
Ihave sought to show that Mr. Kirby’s explanations of the 
discrepancies between his Catalogue and Dr. Staudinger’s do 
not encourage us to expect an effectual reconciliation of them ; 
and to point out that M. Candeéze’s proposal will not improve 
our present position. 
I have said little of the discordant rules and practice 
adopted by different writers on synonymy because this paper 
is too long. Some, who seem to say it is necessary to identify 
the unrecognizable and interpret the unintelligible, have sur- 
rounded themselves with rules of their own private devising 
which, as might have been foretold, fail altogether to save 
them from disagreement, but, on the contrary, supply fresh 
points of difference. The identity of an insect with an old 
description is entirely or in part matter of tradition and not of 
proof. In that state of things we find some (like von Harold) 
avowing candidly that they accept tradition as all in all, while 
others (like Staudinger) profess that they decline to act save 
on ‘proofs which appear irrefragable,” but that certainty 
cannot be attained; while the point to which another (Kirby, 
as we have noticed) brings himself is that there is ‘“‘reason to 
disagree on the identification of certain species,” and ‘no 
rules will be sufficient to ensure absolute agreement in every 
ease.” But I say “ Remove the cause and the effects will dis- 
appear!” No rules which encourage and render obligatory a 
scrutiny of the worthless descriptions will ever produce agree- 
ment; but ofher rules can and will yet effect it. 
Conclusion. 
Confusion in nomenclature is not a visitation of Providence— 
inexplicable, and to be submitted to with folded hands. You 
would almost gather from some things said about it, that a 
mysterious calamity had fallen from the skies, which all were 
helpless to remedy. On the contrary, it is the most common- 
place resv!t of human agencies—and human agencies of a not 
very inscrutable or venerable description. Surely we are not 
going to be so supine as to suffer endless inconveniences for 
want of a resolve to avail ourselves of the expedients which 
are at hand. When thirty years ago the entomologists found 
themselves in trouble about their nomenclature, they made a 
rule to help them, and got straight again. Are we not going 
to do the same? A grave responsibility will, it seems to me, 
rest on those who do not bear a part in effecting some settle- 
ment. If the blow be not struck now, our nomenclature will 
TRANS. ENT. SOC. 1875.—PART I. (MAY.) d 
