ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON. Ixxxi 



the law of priority in respect to nomenclature is not to extend to 

 the writings of antecedent authors. 



"10. A name should be changed which has before been pro- 

 posed for some other genus in Zoology or Botany, or for some 

 other species in the same genus, when still retained for such genus 

 or species. 



"11. A name may be changed when it implies a false proposi- 

 tion which is likely to propagate important errors. 



" 12. A name which has never been clearly defined in some 

 published work should be changed for the earliest name by which 

 the object shall have been so defined. 



"13. A new specific name must be given to a species when 

 its old name has been adopted for a genus which includes that 

 species. 



" 14. In writing Zoological names, the rules of Latin orthogra- 

 phy must be adhered to. 



" Of these rules, the first two will be unhesitatingly assented to 

 as axioms. Rules 3 to 9 inclusive are applicable to genera only, 

 not to species, and thus do not come within the limits of my pre- 

 sent inquiry. Rule 10 is identical with my second law, 'that no 

 two species in the same genus sliould bear the same specific name.' 

 Rule 11 is the first from which I dissent, ' a name may be changed 

 when it implies a false proposition which is likely to propagate 

 important errors.' This, we are told, ' is a concession to human 

 infirmity,' but I beg leave to decline this concession. The report 

 adds, ' Instances of this kind are indeed very rare, and in some 

 cases, such as that of Monodon, Coprinudgus, Paradisea opoda and 

 Monoculus, they have acquired sufficient currency no longer to 

 cause errors, and are therefore retained without change. But 

 when we find a Batrachian reptile named, in violati' n of its true 

 affinities. Mastodon saurus, a Mexican species termed (through 

 erroneous information of its habitat) Picus cafer, or an olive- 

 coloured one Muscicapa atra, — or when a name is derived from 

 an accidental monstrosity, as in Picas sem'/rosiris of Linnaeus and 

 Helix disjuncta of Turton, we feel justified in cancelling these 

 names, and adopting that synonym which stands next in point of 

 date.' And again, ' At the same time we think it right to remark 

 that this privilege is very liable to abuse, and ought therefore to 

 be applied only to extreme cases, and with great caution. With 

 these limitations we may concede that a name may be changed 

 when it implies a false proposition which is likely to propagate 

 important errors.' In the first place, there is here no positive rule 

 laid down ; and unless a rule is fixed and definite, of what use is 



