1528 The Zoologist — January, 1869. 



and give place to H, I, J, K, L, M, N and O; and these again make way for the rest 

 of the alphabet. There is au end to all stability or permanence of p^eneric nouiencla- 

 ture. At the present rate of discovery of species and publication of genera, there would 

 not be in use twenty years hence a single generic name which is now employed. 



I care not whether it be called Papilio of Linne, or of Latreille — in fact, the genus, 

 as now understood, is not exclusively due to either, but is the result of the work of 

 both. To Linne we owe the name, to Latreille our present conception of the genus. 

 But to whomsoever the credit (such as it is) may be due, I hope that so long as genera 

 are recognised at all, so long will there be a genus Papilio. 



Hitherto we have discussed the division of one genus into two or more. The con- 

 verse case, of the aggregation of two or more genera into one genus, has recently been 

 discussed (in the Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist. 1868) by Mr. Pascoe and Messrs. Douglas 

 and Scott. JMr. Pascoe objects to "giving new names to such genera as are formed by 

 the union of two or more genera of a preceding writer." Messrs. Douglas and Scott 

 reply that " it cannot be said with any truth that the name of a thing should be 

 retained for another thing which is difTerenlly constituted, but of which the former 

 may be au ingredient. A chemist when he combines two or more elements does not 

 give the name of any one of them to the resulting compound ; neither can it be rightly 

 done in the labours of the naturalist." Illustrations of this sort, which are not argu- 

 ments, are often delusive, never conclusive: probably those I am about to give are as 

 much so as the above illustration of my friends. But to my mind the grouping 

 together of two things under one name may be more aptly illustrated by a geographical 

 than by a chemical simile: the question is one of boundaries, not of constitution or 

 composition, or chemical amalgamation. France remained France notwithstanding 

 the acquisition of a piece of Italy; Prussia remains Prussia, though it has absorbed 

 the whole of Hanover. The limits are changed, but the name is not; a Nizzard is 

 now (nominally) a Frenchman, a Hanoverian is now (nominally) a Prussian. If an 

 author has established two so-called genera, A and B, and subsequent authors come to 

 the conclusion that, whilst A is a good genus, B has not sufficient distinctive characters 

 to entitle it to rank as a genus apart from A, surely the least inconvenient course is to 

 take A as the name of the whole, rather than abolish A and B, and impose a new name, 

 C. And (in this case, at all events) there is no impropriety in applying name A to the 

 whole group ; the ground on which it is done being this, that B is in fact part of A, 

 and was erroneously severed from A ; it never ought to have been made a genus, and 

 the name therefore is properly sank, when the supposed genus to which it was applied 

 is found to be untenable as a genus. Ou the other hand, I am quite ready to admit 

 that in other cases it may be more convenient to give a new name to the united group ; 

 England and Scotland are united into one kingdom, but it is not the kingdom of 

 England, or the kingdom of Scotland, but the kingdom of Britain. So (without any 

 insinuation that either England or Scotland could not stand alone) if an author has 

 established two so-called genera, A and B, and subsequent authors come to the con- 

 clusion that neither A nor B can stand alone as a genus, but yet that the two combined 

 "do properly form a genus, neither name has any better claim to retention than the 

 other, neither represents a genus, and there seems nothing for it but to sink them both, 

 and give a new name C to the genus, which is then in fact for the first time indicated 

 as a genus. — J. W. D. 



