352 Rev. F. D. Morice and J. H. Durrant on the 



occur in both publications with these differences : (1) One 

 Genus has changed its name between the two pubUcations 

 and Jurine mentions that he has made this change, and 

 says that he has done so dehberately. (2) Many species 

 are added in the Geneva List to those mentioned in the 

 Erlangen List. (3) Several new Genera are introduced 

 in the Geneva List, and these Genera are not numbered at 

 all, because, as Jurine explains to us, he was not acquainted 

 with them when he had completed the body of his work and 

 had also had his original Plates engraved. These therefore 

 were supplementary — added to the work since 1800 when 

 Panzer saw it. 



We think these facts clearly indicate that though the 

 Erlangen Articles were written by Panzer, the authorship 

 of the List should be accredited to Jurine ; and we have 

 ourselves no doubt whatever, that the actual List was 

 received by Panzer from Jurine, and that round it— so to 

 speak — -he wrote the Articles. 



In support of our contention, we quote this Rule of the 

 Zological Congress (Berlin 1901, p. 951) : — 



— " S'il ressort clairement de la pubhcation que ce " 

 [^. e. celui qui I'a public] " n'est pas I'auteur de celle-ci, 

 mais bien un autre auteur qui est le createur du nom et de 

 la definition ou description, ce dernier doit etre considere 

 comme I'auteur legitime du nom." 



This Rule seems to express exactly the view which we 

 venture to take ; and we hold accordingly that Jurine and 

 not Panzer is the " author " of all new names in the 

 Erlangen List. They are expressly accredited to him there ; 

 and he unquestionably created and defined them himself. 

 Panzer did not, and could not (in 1801) do anything of the 

 kind, his own acquaintance with the characters of Hymeno- 

 ptera being as yet far too superficial. In 1806, we believe, 

 he made his first attempt in that direction when he proposed 

 and defined the Genus Osmia. 



It may still be asked — Why, then, did Jurine in the 

 Nouvelle Methode, 1807, seem to disclaim his authorship 

 and accredit names of his own to Panzer? But we do 

 not think much of this. Jurine could not foresee our 

 present definitions of publication, authorship, etc., nor the 

 importance now attached to Priority, Vahdity, etc., etc. 

 After all. Panzer had first passed the Names through the 

 press at Erlangen, and Jurine may have had no particular 

 desire to take credit for them, just as Panzer had felt 



