( xcv ) 



" The Clothes-moths were called Tinea by all authors pre- 

 vious to Linnaeus, but 1758 was arbitrarily fixed as the 

 date of the commencement of Zoological nomenclature, and 

 Linnaeus unfortunately described Tinea from the wrong 

 species; therefore either the foundation of Zoological nomen- 

 clature must be abandoned or the use of Tinea altered. 



" I stated the dilemma to Mr. E. Meyrick, whose only 

 reply was that ' types were made for science, and not science 

 for types,' i. e. he acknowledged the facts, but thought they 

 should be ignored." 



He also asked, " Why are Scopoli's genera for Butterflies 

 in 1777 ignored ? " and gave a list of these genera and of the 

 names they would displace. 



Dr. G. A. K. Marshall pointed out that, in contrast with 

 the haphazard method of the earlier zoologists of applying to 

 animals such scientific names as they thought fit, without 

 regard to the names used by other workers, our modern 

 system of nomenclature has been built up on the principle 

 that all valid systematic work done by earlier authors must 

 be recognised. With this principle, the so-called " law of 

 priority," the method adopted by Sir George Hampson, in 

 opposition to all other entomologists, is in direct conflict ; for 

 in defining the older genera he has assumed the first species 

 mentioned by the original author to be the type, and has com- 

 pletely ignored the subsequent revisions of such genera by 

 other systematists. No adequate reason has been offered for 

 this arbitrary innovation, except that it will relieve those who 

 adopt it from the trouble of acquainting themselves with the 

 work of previous writers. Apart from the hopeless confusion 

 in zoological nomenclature that would result from the general 

 adoption of such a system, it is so obviously unjust that it is 

 not likely to find acceptance among scientific men. 



The Rev. F. D. Morice remarked that the Honey-bee had 

 been accepted by all authors as the typical Apis of Linne, but 

 that the first species standing under A])is in the " Systema " 

 (Ed. X) was not the Honey-bee, but what we now know as 

 Eucera longicornis, L. Also, that the first species described 

 in the same work as a Sphez was an insect from Surinam, 

 which the author certainly would not have selected as his 



