transfers of names of genera. 185 



principle for genera only so long as the generic character, 

 or definition of the genus, remains unaltered ; but 

 whenever an original investigator defines a genus more 

 completely than has been done before, he is to be left 

 free to name it as he pleases. Every consideration of 

 utility and common sense will, of course, lead him to 

 retain a name already in use where the new genus does 

 not materially differ from an older one ; but of that he 

 is alone the judge, and it should be absolutely forbidden 

 to any third party to say that a name so given must be 

 changed." 



This is surely clear, definite, and diametrically op- 

 posed to M. des Gozis' assumptions. Indeed, so difficult 

 is it to apply the theory of Priority to genera that it 

 has only been found possible to do so by devising an 

 artifice for the purpose. This consists in saying that 

 the species considered as the type of the genus by its 

 author shall always retain the original generic name ; 

 but, as the older writers on Entomology had not the 

 remotest conception of such a thing as this typical 

 species, it is necessary to invent a type for them. This 

 has been done by another convention, viz., by saying 

 that when an author does not mention a type for his 

 genus, the first species he placed in the genus shall be 

 taken as the type. I am not in the least arguing against 

 the utility of these assumptions when properly wielded ; 

 they may be found extremely useful by any naturalist 

 who wishes to guide his conduct in such a matter by 

 some generally understood principle ; but it is quite 

 ridiculous to take for granted that they are beyond 

 question, that they are free from " convention," and 

 more especially to assume that the next generation will 

 feel itself bound to accept them. 



Here we have M. des Gozis refusing to accept the 

 practical conclusions arrived at by past generations and 

 consecrated by use in a century of literature, and yet at 

 the same time taking it for granted that his suggestions 

 and method are so certain to be adopted by a future 

 generation that he invites us to plunge into chaos with 

 only them to buoy us. Is it probable his belief in the 

 harmony between his theory and future generations is 

 well founded ? Are the signs of the times such as to 

 make us believe that the next generation will certainly 

 accept a method artificially devised by one or two 



TRANS. ENT. SOC, LOND. 1886. PART II. (jUNE.) O 



