6 



THE AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Thompson or Cook & Smith, aucl the new firms 

 of Jones & Johnson, or Taylor & Jones? How 

 everybody wonld be bothered and tormented, 

 for no earthly purpose, except for the special 

 gratification of the very learned antiquaries 

 who, by toiling without pay or reward for a 

 long series of years, and by covering themselves 

 with the dust of all the libraries in Europe, had 

 made these most valuable and important discov- 

 eries ! It is just so in Science. This year an 

 insect bears the specific name which it has borne 

 for the last ten or twelve years. Next year 

 some entomological archaeologist, who knows a 

 great deal more about books than about bugs, 

 insists upon its receiving a new name, being an 

 old name which he is of opinion was given to 

 this same insect fifty years ago by some ancient 

 author. Well, the obedient scientific world 

 submits to his dictum — relabels its cabinets— 

 and begins gradually to acquire the habit of 

 addressing Mr. Smith as "Mr. Jones." But — 

 lo and behold!— the very next year there comes 

 a still more recondite antiquary, covered three 

 inches deeper with learned dust than his prede- 

 cessor, and insists upon it that tliis very same 

 bug was named and described one hundred 

 years ago by an old forgotten autlior, whose 

 writings are now completely ont of date I Alas 

 for the poor helpless victims of the inexorable 

 " Law of Priority !" Everybody lias to adopt 

 the newly-discovered name; and while nineteen 

 naturalists out of every twenty curse these arch- 

 reologists, in their hearts, as the greatest of all 

 possible scientific nuisances, they yet laud them 

 most vigorously in public, as ornaments of sci- 

 ence and discoverers of the most important 

 truths. But we have not yet arrived at the last 

 scene in this scientific farce. After our two an. 

 tiquaries have succes.sively covered themselves 

 with glory by rebaptizing twice over the very 

 same insect, some ingenious person comes along 

 who has access to some European Cabinet of 

 Insects, in which original specimens of several 

 of the species named by old authors are pre- 

 served. Upon carefully examining these speci- 

 mens, he discovers that the two antiquaries are 

 both of them mistaken, and that the two species 

 described by the two old authors are quite dif- 

 ferent from that which has given rise to all this 

 wilderness of assertions and argument. The 

 result of course is, that we have to return to the 

 original name, and all the cabinets in the world 

 have for the third time to I'eceive new labels. 

 To recur once moic to our homely illustration 

 from popular life— we are first compelled to 

 call Mr. Smith "Mr. Jones," and then just as 

 we are getting used to calling him " Jones," 



we have to give up " Jones" and take perforce 

 to "Thompson" or "Cook." And finally, af- 

 ter all this useless and wearisome chopping and 

 changing, we have to return like a dog to his 

 vomit and call Mr. Smith by his original appel- 

 lation of " Smith." 



Certain scientific associations and certain au- 

 thors — Dr. Schaum for example — have endeav- 

 ored to limit and restrict the above abuse of the 

 " Law of Priority." For ourselves, we must 

 confess that we agree with Dr. Schaum and the 

 rest of that school; but at present the fashion 

 tends in the contrary direction, and naturalists 

 are now, many of them, as busily occupied in 

 discovering new names as ladies are in invent- 

 ing new bonnets, and perhaps with much the 

 same benefits to the cause of science. To us, it 

 appears that a single new fact about the habits 

 of an insect, or a single new idea upon its cor- 

 rect position in the scale of classification, are of 

 far more importance than the knowledge of 

 what particular name it bore some fifty or a 

 hundred years ago. Of course such inquiries 

 as these last are to a certain extent interesting 

 and instructive; and so it is just as well for us 

 to know that New York was formerly called 

 " New Amsterdam," and that Loudon was 

 known to the ancient IJomaus, not as Loudon, 

 but as " Londiuinm." Nobody, however, but 

 a fool or a madman would try to persuade the 

 modern Gothamites (o call their great city 

 "New Amsterdam," or the English cockneys to 

 have their letters addressed to "Loudinium," 

 because these were the old original names. And 

 yet what men of the world would never dream 

 of doing, certain scientific men are busily en- 

 gaged in doing every day. For unfortunately 

 the entomological antiquaries are never satisfied 

 with simply proving to their own satisfaction 

 that certain species, now universally known by 

 certain specific names, were known a long time 

 ago under other names. But they will insist 

 upon having the privilege of forcing these old- 

 fashioned names down the throats of their 

 neighbors, by virtue of this tremendous •• Law 

 of Priority." 



To apply the above remarks to the third and 

 fourth questions of our correspondent : About 

 the middle of the last century a German author 

 called Foei'ster, is thought to have named and 

 described as the "Ash-gray Blister-beetle" 

 (cinerea) the very same species of insects, 

 which Fabricius several years afterwards named 

 and described as the " Margined Blister-beetle" 

 {marginata), and which was for a long series of 

 subsequent years known iu the scientific world 

 exclusively by this latter specific name. As 



