326 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [July, ’12 
stability until all the genera and species of the early authors are mono- 
graphed by specialists, but the law is a means to an end, and it is 
working slowly but surely to that end; the real question is this: which 
is the best scientific basis to adopt, the principle of Nomina conservanda 
or the Law of Priority? 
For general zoologists, especially perhaps professional zoologists and 
biologists, no doubt the former would be the more convenient. A short 
time ago one of the most eminent entomologists in England said to me, 
“of course Passer domesticus will always be Passer domesticus to me.” 
He was not an ornithologist, and naturally the names we have known 
species by for many years remain remembered, simply because we are 
not working at that group. That gentleman, however, is a strict 
“Priorist” and it is quite impossible for a systematist and a specialist 
to be otherwise. When we monograph a group, we must look up all 
the old literature on the subject and find out if they had previously 
described any of the species we are working at. This is not antiquari- 
anism—it is scientific investigation. If they had I for one should feel 
obliged to adopt the oldest name up to the 1oth edition of the Systema 
Naturae (1758). By this process we gradually bring Kosmos out of 
Chaos, to use an extreme phrase, and we are working to put the next 
generation on solid ground. I think Mr. Caudell is largely right when 
he says that “priority is certain of more unanimous consent,” for I feel 
sure this will be so among systematists and specialists. 
I cannot, however, understand for what reason the commission sent 
round a note of inquiry about Meigen’s names; they appear to have 
forgotten their own laws. The adoption of that list of names is ab- 
solutely contrary to article 25 b; it breaks the very first law of “The 
Law of Priority’ which reads: “The valid name of a genus or species 
can be only that name under which it was first designated on the con- 
dition that the author has applied the principles of binary nomencla- 
ture.” 
Meigen did not apply the principles of binary nomenclature, therefore, 
the whole of that list published in 1800 is invalid and cannot be 
adopted—if three years later he adopts some of those genera and indi- 
cates their species as well, then, but only then, does he comply with 
the code, and therefore the names date from 1803 not 1800, and as a 
consequence some of Latreille’s names dating from 1802 have prece- 
dence over Meigen’s, which can only date from the time when he 
conformed to the principles of binary nomenclature. My view of this 
is, that the commission cannot break their own laws and if they want 
to rule in favor of Meigen, they must amend article 25; this I sincerely 
trust they will not do. Of course the commission may say that they 
have only ruled in favor of those names where they are found valid 
