xlvii 
retrogressive development, as opposed to, and entitled to super- 
sede that of, universal progress ! 
“ Who shall decide when doctors disagree ?” 
NOMENCLATURE. 
Mr. Arnold Lewis has revived the discussion of ‘‘ Entomolo- 
gical Nomenclature and the Rule of Priority,” in an elaborate 
treatise published as an Appendix to the first volume of our 
Transactions for 1875; wherein he dilates, with much cogency 
of argument, on the propriety of maintaining the principle of 
established usage, in contradistinction to the practice which has 
obtained, in some quarters, of superseding universally accepted 
names by others of earlier date but questionable accuracy, con- 
sidered synonymous therewith, but long since obsolete, and in 
the conjectural application of which the apostles of this creed 
frequently and widely disagree. 
The serious complications ensuing from such innovations are 
indisputable; and the rule of priority, however excellent and 
essential as originally applied in a limited sense to obviate con- 
fusion, has been stretched to an extent which could hardly have 
been anticipated, tending rather to augment than diminish this 
evil, by introducing perplexing elements conflicting with time- 
honoured accord. 
Uniformity being the great desideratum, and the substitution 
of antiquated names, of doubtful attributions, for others of esta- 
blished repute, being a gratuitous infliction involving disastrous 
consequences, any measure tending to promote the one and 
counteract the other must be hailed as a step in the right 
direction. 
The proposed remedy suggests that ‘“‘a stand-point” should 
be fixed—say from 1842, when the rule of priority was laid down 
by the British Association, or any other preferable date which 
should preclude contested references to anterior epochs—and to 
regard the names universally recognised at such period as irre: 
vocably permanent; respecting the law of priority as applicable 
to those questionable at the time and subsequently, but depriving 
that law of retroactive effect as regards others. Such at least 
would seem to be the purport of the projected scheme. 
There are, however, many abstruse questions affecting principles 
of nomenclature which are continually occurring, and to which it 
