THE AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



both Harris and Fitch malce use of this name, 

 ami it lias tlms become familiarized to the popu- 

 hirearin America, we ourselves adopted itin our 

 first volume (page 25). And thinking as we do 

 of the necessity of not pushing the " Law of 

 Priority " to its extreraest point, we maintain 

 that this name, the "Margined Blister-beetle," 

 having been once firmly established and receiv- 

 ed in science, ought never to be changed. Of 

 course, the ultra advocates of the " Law of Pri- 

 ority " will be of the contrary opinion ; and this 

 being a free country, everybody can think and 

 act for himself. After all, it is a mere question 

 of icords and not oi things; and even those that 

 maintain such changes as these to be necessary 

 will allow that they are an unmitigated nui- 

 sance. 



On the whole, such scientific reconstructions 

 strike us very much like those heraldic anoma- 

 lies of the British aristocracy, according to 

 which the man whom we read of in history 

 as Danby, subsequently becomes Marquis Car- 

 marthen, and finally Duke of Leeds. Or we 

 may compare them to the ancient law of the 

 Sandwich Islanders, that, on the death of every 

 King of those islands, so many score words in 

 their language should be radically changed, so 

 tliat, instead of " bread" and "stone" for ex- 

 ample, being called "whang" and "choch," 

 they should, in commemoration of the deceased 

 monarch, be forever thereafter known as 

 "chum" and " fum." 



If the reader adopts the views expressed by 

 us above, " the Ash-gray Blister-beetle" {cme- 

 rca) is the correct specific name for the species 

 which was designated bj' this appellation by 

 Fabricius after Focrster published his work. If, 

 however, the Margined Blister-beetle is to be 

 rechristeued as " the Ash-gray Blister-beetle," 

 in accordance with the strict Law of Priority, 

 then the specific name of " Ash-gray " (cinerea) 

 is preoccupied, provided we refer both insects 

 to the same genus. And in tliat event no new 

 specific name can be more appropriate and in 

 accordance with rule than Fabricii. We can- 

 not understand, however, why both insects 

 should not bear the same specific name (_cinerea), 

 provided they are referred to dilTerent and dis- 

 tinct genera, as is now generally done in purely 

 scientific works. 



In any case, if we are careful to add to the 

 specific name the name of its author, there can 

 practically be no confusion or mistake. Every- 

 body, for example, will understand at once, 

 that " Lyita cinerea, Foerster," means the 

 Blister-beetle described under the name of 

 cinerea by Foerster and " Lytta cinerea, Fabri- 



cius" means the very different Blister-beetle 

 subsequently described under the very same 

 name of cinerea by Fabricius. 



Generic Names. 

 As a general rnle, species may be considered 

 as having a real existence in nature, and as cre- 

 ations which, however much they may become 

 changed and modified in a long series of indefi- 

 nite ages, are yet practically unchangeable 

 within the very limited times to which the 

 knowledge of the present generation extends. 

 Take, for example, the magnificent group of 

 Moths formerly comprised by Linnteus under 

 bis extensive genus Attacus, to which the Poly- 

 phemus Moth, figured on page 121 of our first 

 volume, belongs. In the United States there 

 are four species of this group commonly met 

 with, besides two or three others which are 

 more or less rare. Thousands of specimens of 

 each of these four species pass annually through 

 the hands of American Entomologists ; and yet 

 nobody ever met with a single specimen, which 

 could not be referred at a glance to its appro- 

 priate species. With genera the case is very 

 ditferent. It will be allowed on all hands that 

 a genus is not a definite and unchangeable crea- 

 tion—the same in the days of our grandfathers 

 as it is now, and likely to remain the same till 

 the days of our grandchildren. On the con- 

 trary, genera in the scientific world are in a 

 constant state of fluctuation, two or three old 

 genera being sometimes amalgamated together 

 to form a new one, but the more usual tendency 

 being for one old genus to be split up into sev- 

 eral new ones. For instance, the four splendid 

 Moths referred to above, which in the times of 

 Linufeus and his immediate followers were all 

 considered as belonging to the same genus, are 

 now referred by almost all scientific entomolo- 

 gists to three distinct genera, and iu the opinion 

 of some few are divided among no less than 

 four— or a genus for every single species. No 

 doubt, in the great majority of cases, this sub- 

 division of one old genus into several new ones 

 is a benefit to science and a great practical con- 

 venience to the student. When, for example, 

 an old genus contains a very great number of 

 species — say fifty or a hundred — and we wish to 

 ascertain whether a species that belongs to it 

 has been already described, we then have to 

 compare our species with no less than fifty or a 

 hundred different descriptions before we can 

 decide the question one way or the other. 

 Whereas if this unwieldy old genus had been 

 separated by well-marked characters into four 

 or five new genera, each containing some twen- 



