3128 Tue Zootocist—Juty, 1872. 
penned an article. This List utterly subverted all existing or previous 
arrangements, and its history furnishes an only too significant proof that 
Entomology is at the mercy of list-makers. But, generally, the publication 
of a list of names, unaccompanied by reasons, furnishes an easy and 
tempting opportunity for airing a crotchet. Consequently, no man’s list 
follows exactly the work of any one else; and it is scarcely straining 
language to say that there are as many systems of arrangement as there are 
lists of names! The changes in arrangement thus introduced may be, and 
have been exposed as being, unfounded, mistaken, happy-go-lucky changes. 
But changes so made are, it is only too true, made effectually, and endure.” 
—P. 76. 
I now turn back to passages which I can endorse most willingly, 
and which have my unqualified approbation ; and first to the rule 
of “ Priority” and its difficulties. Priority advocates agree on a 
principle, and, without exception, cripple that principle with 
limitations of their own invention. Mr. Lewis puts the case gently 
and pleasantly, and treats this branch of his subject with a 
courteous consideration that I scarcely think due to the “ priority” 
advocates, not one of whom pretends to adopt the earliest name, 
but the earliest name that agrees with some other law or rule 
which he has imposed on himself. A naturalist or a lexicographer 
would define the word “ Priority” as “the state of being first,” 
and, as applied to dates, “precedence in time.” Among ento- 
mologists it has no such meaning; we should all agree in ridiculing 
such a definition. Let us hear Mr. Lewis :— 
« Now, we of this generation find a rule all cut and dried for us; and we 
agree no doubt that this rule is reasonable and efficacious. Moreover, it is 
the only rule which has been acted on for securing uniformity; and, inde- 
pendently of its merits, the principle has now received very extensive 
acceptance. Therefore, we are not put to invent a rule for ourselves, as we 
are fortunate enough to inherit a good one. But we of this generation make 
a discovery. We find that this rule is being applied in a manner to re- 
introduce the confusion which it was invented to dissipate. We find that 
names in use nowhere and entirely forgotten are brought up to supersede 
names universally agreed on; and we find that upon the new names them- 
selves there is no sign or semblance of agreement between those who 
support their introduction. This is a new matter entirely. Our cut-and- 
dried rule will not serve us here; and it seems that we are called upon to 
invent something to meet the difficulty. This we are fully entitled, and 
indeed, if we are worth our salt, are bound in our turn to do. 
