( 494 ) 



and the non-geographical variety, we have adopted the convenient method of 

 adding the name of tlie geographical variety to that of the species without 

 pntting " var.," or " var. geogr.," or "snlisp." between the two names, exactly 

 as in the case of genns and species. The formula for a si)ecies is Papilio 

 darilanus. We are accnstomed to this formula, knowing at once when seeing 

 a similar formula (Precis ocfan'a, Amuun's echeria) that Papilio means a genus, 

 and thinlaniiA a species of this genus. Nobody will insist on Papilio spec. 

 durdanus. The corresponding formula for the Abyssinian variety of dardanm 

 is dardanus antinorii, the formula telling us at a glance that dardanas is a 

 species and antinorii one of its geographical varieties. Why do some authors 

 insist on the longer formula, dardaiais var. antinorii or dardanus var. geogr. 

 antinorii? There is no reason underlying the objection to dardanus antinorii — 

 it is only habit. Some older writers on vertebrates object to " trinomials," and 

 we see that Dr. Pagenstecher does the same. We can very well understand Orni- 

 thologists like Saunders, Dresser, Sharpe, etc., finding " trinomials " cumbersome, 

 these authors having been accustomed only to names for genera and species. 

 Habit is stronger than reason. However, that Sclater, one of the fathers of 

 the science of geographical distribution, writes disparagingly of the study of 

 geographical variation is a fact which is beyond our understanding. But we are 

 yet more astonished that Entomologists, and above all Lepidojiterists, make three 

 names the basis of an objection. There are thousands and thousands of forms 

 of insects with three names, and neither Pagenstecher nor Aurivillius have 

 really any objection to these " trinomials," for they employ them. The formulae 

 Papilio dardanus var. antinorii and Papilio dardanus antinorii are surely both 

 trinomiual. The second formula has, however, the great advantage of contrasting 

 much more conspicuously with the formulae for non-geographical varieties, 

 and it is the shorter of the two. If people will not see that, we cannot 

 help them. 



However, differences of opinion in nomenclatorial matters are, as such, of 

 little importance. The names are not part of the natural history of the animals. 

 But if the objection to progressive innovations in nomenclature tends to affect 

 adversely the progress of science, it becomes dangerous. The danger to science 

 is obvious enough in the following sentences of Dr. Pagenstecher, I.e. : " I am 

 inclined to carry this simplification still further than it has been done by Aurivillius. 

 For it is possible, without the confusing introduction of new and independent 

 species-names (s/c.'), to fix the interesting varieties produced by soil and season. . . . 

 The German scientific world appears indeed to intend remaining true to the 

 old Linneau nomenclature. ... It is to be hoped that the mania for erecting 

 ' new ' forms with new names will soon return into its proper limitations.'' 



If German science is anything, it is thorough. If the German Lepidopterists 

 really content themselves with the Liimoan standpoint, as Dr. Pagenstecher says 

 they appear to do, the German scientists will hardly be willing to recognise 

 them as members of their fraternity. Wi- well know that a good many collections 

 of insects are brought together only for the sake of the pleasure it gives the 

 owners to look over the beautiful or bizarre creations of Nature. We sympathise 

 with these collectors, because we experience the same jjleasure. We also know 

 that there are still Entomologists who hate the " ugly " i)ieces of paper under- 

 neath the insects bearing the name of the locality and of the collector, and the 

 date of capture, and who do not want to have the beauty of their specimens 



