Ixxxii PROCEEDINGS OP THE 



it ? In the second place, who is to decide when a name is or is 

 not likely to propagate important eri'ors ? A very large propor- 

 tion of insects are named after plants on which they do not feed : 

 but as a name is not meant to be a description, why change it 

 because if viewed as a description it is found incorrect. Rule 12, 

 which throws down manuscript names, or names published in a 

 Catalogue (without any description), is a regulation quite in ac- 

 cordance with my own views. Rule 13 having been generally 

 adopted in past cases, and being not likely to be called into use in 

 future, may safely be conceded : thus, instead of Cossus cossus, L., 

 we say Cossus Ligniperda, F. Rule 14, 'In writing Zoological 

 names the rules of Latin orthograjihy must be adhered to.' This 

 is a very good rule for authors to observe, but of doubtful appli- 

 cability to the past, especially when we find it recommended that 

 ' when a name has been erroneously written, and its orthography 

 afterwards amended, we conceive that the authority of the original 

 author should still be retained for the name, and not that of the 

 person who makes the correction.' Are we then to say Sulzeriella 

 ofLinnseus, Christiernini of lAnnasus, Tapetiella of Liinnsens, such 

 names not occurring in Linnaeus at all? instead of *S'w/;;eZ/a, Chris- 

 tiernana, Tapezella : surely this would be making confusion, not 

 lessening it. 



" I cannot conclude this paper without a few words in reply to 

 the facetious remarks of the Editor of the ' Zoologist,' (Zool. 2549). 

 He states that the novelties in the laws to which his remarks refer 

 will not be attended to : now I utterly deny that they contain any 

 novelties. Let us see if we can find one. Is it in Law No. 1, 

 that ' the name first given to an insect by printed publication is 

 always that which is to be retained' ? Surely this is no novelty ; 

 for I observe in the ' Zoologist,' (Zool. 2136), the words, ' I can- 

 not pronounce too emphatically that priority is the only law I can 

 ever consent to acknowledge in the nomenclature of species,' and 

 they are followed by the signature, ' Edward Newman.' Is the 

 novelty in Law No. 2, that ' No two species in the same genus 

 should bear the same specific name' ? Having been told by so 

 many parties that is an axiom and a truism, I cannot surely believe 

 there is any novelty in it. Law No. 3 is no new law, but merely 

 a deduction from Law No. 1 ; and any one fully granting Law 

 No. 1 cannot dispute this law. The writer further adds, that in 

 these laws ' there are good points, but none of these have the 

 charm of novelty, neither do they require re-enactment.' It must 

 surely have escaped his notice, perhaps in the hurry of the moment, 

 that an attempt is being made to supersede the law of priority in 



