THE ZooLocist—Juty, 1872. 3129 
“Let us shortly examine some of these difficulties, and the causes which 
have occasioned them. We shall soon be able to judge whether our old 
rule will be sufficient in time to overcome them; or whether it is not 
necessary for us to come forward and devise for ourselves some new 
expedient. For this purpose I propose to take note of the opinions of those 
who hold that the old rule will be sufficient to help us. 
“In the first place it is necessary to remark that every resurrectionist 
author has his own particular views. There is no such thing as a complete 
agreement among them all, or even between any two of them. The 
partisans of absolute priority differ radically among themselves on both the 
two questions,—when our nomenclature is to be taken as beginning, and 
what degree of identification is to be required before a given name is 
accepted ; or, in other words, they differ in toto as to the application of their 
principle. _ They likewise differ on the questions how to arrive at a name: 
when a species is described by the discoverer more than once; and in the 
case of names nonsensical or not properly constructed. I will touch very 
lightly on these several matters. 
“ First of all, then, the old-priority partisans differ completely as to when 
our nomenclature begins. The priority principle, they say, requires the 
acceptance of the earliest name; and it is, therefore, of the first importance 
to discover how far back your investigations are to go. A short examination 
into the position of affairs will be quite enough to satisfy entomologists that 
there is no reasonable hope of an agreement being arrived at on this head. 
“There are, at present, at least four different dates, each of which is set 
up by different living entomologists as the date when scientific nomenclature 
began :— 
“1735. Mr. Crotch (for genera). 
“1751. Dr. Thorell. 
“1758. Staudinger and Wocke; Gemminger and Von Harold. 
“1767. Mr. Kirby (Catalogue): British Association. 
“Tn addition, Mr. W. F. Kirby has shown that specific names were first 
given in 1746; so that this new date must be added to the list of those 
claimed as the commencement of our nomenclature. Some of the names of 
1746, rejected by Linneus himself, were, it seems, subsequently adopted by 
Esper, Retzius, and others; so that there is abundant reason for contending 
that those Fauna Suecica names should be upheld. The other dates, 
1751, 1758, and 1767, are each and all found supported by arguments, 
into whose merits, as they are foreign to my subject, I do not now travel.” 
iP. 0. 
The further abundant and pertinent details and examples, for 
which I cannot afford space, are worthy the most attentive study ; 
and I think that every candid reader who peruses them will 
