186 Mr, D. Sharp on some iiroposed 



individuals of this generation '? The answer must be a 

 very doubtful one. It is at any rate clear that we may 

 leave future generations to decide for themselves, and 

 may at present do what is most convenient for the 

 present generation. On the whole history teaches us 

 that this is the sort of decision a future generation is 

 most likely to respect, and that such a course taken by 

 us is more likely to maintain unbroken the continuity 

 between past and future — that is, to secure stability. 



But M. des Gozis appeals to another sentiment, and 

 to one that we must all respect— the sense of justice. 

 This part of the question has been frequently discussed, 

 and may therefore be quickly passed over. Let it be 

 granted that had there been in use in the time of 

 Fabricius a system for managing changes of generic 

 names, some injustices would have been avoided ; it is 

 none the less true that no such system tvas in use, and 

 that we cannot go back one hundred years to put it in 

 operation. I respect greatly Mr. Marsham's feelings of 

 indignation and his injured sense of justice, but those 

 feelings have become "portions and parcels of the 

 dreadful past," and cannot now be altered, do what we 

 will. The common sense of mankind may be said to 

 have decided that in no case can a law, even where 

 intended to promote fair dealing between individuals, be 

 made retrospective in its action. By no human means 

 can the iniquities accumulated during a century be 

 effaced, though the accumulation may serve to warn us 

 of what we should avoid in the future. 



I will recapitulate my argument by saying that priority 

 cannot be applied to generic names, except by the use of 

 some artifice : that no artifice for the purpose has yet 

 received the general sanction of savants : that should 

 such artifice be generally accepted, it cannot be made 

 retrospective in its operation : that, as we cannot bind 

 future generations to our conclusions, we should adopt 

 such system as is most convenient for the present 

 generation : that it would be exceedingly inconvenient 

 to transfer the names Carahus, Mclolontha, Bruchus, 

 Coccinella, &c., to any extent greater than that which 

 we cannot possibly avoid. 



The difficulty, indeed, may be entirely met by only 

 putting the author's name after a generic name in 

 suitable cases. As regards this, I will quote what I 



