Rules for Entomological Nomenclature. 7 



In this investigation, however, I also think it equally clear that we ought 

 to be allowed to consider the Systema Naturse as our boundary mark, 

 vvdthout being required to trace the name of an insect through all the old 

 and fabulous authors who have treated upon it, and who have at the same 

 time introduced so much confusion amongst the names by which the more 

 commonly known insects were designated, that it is now almost impossible 

 (although in itself a sufficiently interesting subject for investigation) to 

 discover the insects alluded to by those authors. Linnseus, on the other 

 hand, " primus scientiam in forniam systematis redegit, genera condidit, 

 characteres nominaque eorumdedit;*" a system fixed and harmonious 

 throughout, and sufficient in itself to carry his name down to the latest 

 posterity, and as such, the names employed by him are now, notwith- 

 standing the admitted impropriety of a very few of them, almost univer- 

 sally adopted. I therefore think that it would at once tend to overthrow so 

 valuable a system were we unnecessarily to set aside his names, preferring 

 to them others, which, even were they adopted, would lead to no 

 satisfactory results. 



There is also another question (too often overlooked) which, although 

 not immediately connected with the present subject, I may be allowed to 

 mention. I allude to priority in regard to the Nomenclature of Species. 

 Now the purpose for which specific names are bestowed upon insects is 



comprised so many of such subdivisions ? or to which of his other subdivisions 

 ought his name Entedon parpreference to be exclusively given ? 



It may however be said that the whole group having apparently six or seven 

 joints in the antennae is but of the rank of a genus, then in such case Dalman's 

 name must inevitably sink into a synonym of Eulophus, since Latreille pre- 

 viously extended the latter generic name over the whole group, and that name 

 would be then employed; first, as a generic one as proposed by Latreille for 

 for the whole group ; and second, as a subgeneric one as proposed by Geoffroy 

 for the true Eulophi, perhaps forming the name in the latter case, after Mr. 

 Kirby's plan, into the subgeneric name Eulophae; Dalman's other sections and 

 subsections having new subgeneric names given to them similarly terminating ; 

 but for my own part, as between these two plans, which in the end may be said 

 at most to possess a variance but no difference, I certainly at present feel in- 

 clined to prefer the former. In any case the adoption of Dalman's name Entedon 

 will be attended with confusion. 



* Fab., Phil. Ent. p. 88. 



