lxiv 
Natural History, or because an earlier generic name than that in 
common use has been discovered. Now although these are valid 
reasons for altering a name in some cases, they are not always so, 
and I think we should refuse to accept the decisions of any author 
who is not governed by the limitations which the British Asso- 
ciation Rules place on the alteration of names. It is even 
questionable whether the author of a catalogue is not going 
beyond his province in making any corrections or alterations of 
names in use, for any reason whatever. It may be said that he 
should simply record the facts, adopt the nomenclature in use, 
whenever there is uniformity among living authors, and point out 
if he likes in foot-notes his belief that such a name should be 
altered for certain reasons. He should consider himself an 
adviser in such matters, not a judge. I will take one example, 
almost the first that struck me on turning over the pages of Mr. 
Kirby’s Catalogue, in order to show the mischief of such altera- 
tions, and how little they help to promote stability of nomenclature. 
We find, at p. 303, the old genus Erycina of Fabricius, which for 
sixty years has stood without a synonym, and which is familiar 
to every one acquainted with South-American butterflies or with 
the illustrations of Hewitson, Saunders, and Felder, entirely 
abolished in favour of a much later name, Ancyluris, because the 
original name is said to be preoccupied. Yet, according to the 
British Association Rules, the name Erycina must stand; Rule 10, 
which applies to this case being as follows: “A name should be 
changed which has before been proposed 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.” The last clause of this rule 
saves our old and admired friend Erycina from the indignity of an 
alias, for although that name was given to a genus of Mollusca by 
Lamarck in 1805, it has long been abolished as an unintelligible 
“omnium +gatherum,” and the species distributed in various 
Linnean and other genera. Mr. Kirby, however, prints the rule 
in his preface, omitting the last clause, and by doing so has been 
led to make alterations which those rules in their entirety do not 
justify, and which therefore cannot stand.* But by far the most 
* BEyen should it be necessary to alter a name on account of preoccupation, the 
change made should be as small as possible, and should be effected by altering a 
single letter or the termination—not by the introduction of a totally new name, 
such as is usually given by Mr. Kirby. Thus if Paphia, Fabr., which has been in 
