182 Mr. D. Sharp on some proposed 



the greatest possible confusion. I may describe it by 

 the following analogy : the names of the letters or signs 

 A, B, C are as well known to us as the letters themselves, 

 but these specialists propose to eliminate the name A 

 altogether, to call the letter A, B, and to provide a new 

 name for B ; it would not, I think, be easy to devise a 

 system that should render confusion more complete. 

 The name Procrustes is to cease to exist, and to be 

 replaced by Carahus, while Carahus is to be called 

 Tadtypus, and our old friend Tachypus is to have a new 

 name altogether. 



It is evident that it would be much less inconvenient 

 to have an entirely new system of names than to be 

 compelled to rearrange, as fresh mental conceptions, these 

 rudely dislocated associations. In the absence of any 

 competitor the 3rd edition of the * Catalogue of European 

 Coleoptera, recently published at Berlin, must be con- 

 sidered a standard work, and in it certain of these 

 objectionable transfers are unfortunately adopted. Em- 

 boldened by this success, M. des Gozis has just published 

 a pamphlet, in which he proposes to carry the confusion 

 of names to its completion. It is well written, and its 

 author from many points of view must be congratulated : 

 I would, indeed, advise every coleopterist to read it, and, 

 having done so, I hope he will conclude to have nothing 

 to do with the changes proposed in it. It is called 

 * Recherche de I'espece t3^pique de quelques anciens 

 genres,' and, as it is not accessible to many, I will 

 take the liberty of translating its Introduction as 

 follows : — 



" The primary necessity for the progress of a science 

 is that its nomenclature shall be fixed. The necessary 

 condition for a fixed nomenclature is that it shall rest on 

 invariable principles, and nothing be left to the judgment 

 of an individual. For this reason, and surrounded by a 

 constantly increasing flood of synonyms, the most 

 authoritative savants a few years since gave out the 

 principle, now almost unanimously admitted, of Priority. 



" The first consequence that one can notice from the 

 application of this principle has been naturally a com- 

 plete turning upside down (' un grand bouleversement'). 

 It was foreseen. It was necessary that justice should 

 be done, and that we should efface even to the last trace 

 the iniquities accumulated by a century of arbitrary 



