May, 1889]. 265 



GENEKIC NOMENCLATIVE IN ENTOMOLOGY. 



In a meeting held on the 13th January, 1889, at Leiden, the 

 Netherland Entomological Society discussed a question which will, 

 undoubtedly, be considered by every Entomologist as one of the 

 highest import, viz. : the present movement to change generic names 

 and to introduce new names for those which, established by long use, 

 are generally adopted in the science of Entomology — a movement 

 which, if not checked in time, will give rise to much confusion and all 

 sorts of mistakes. 



On a previous occasion the Society had appointed a Committee 

 of some members to examine the matter. In the aforesaid meeting 

 this Committee read the following Eeport : — 



" In the meeting of the Netherland Entomological Society, on 

 the 22nd January, 1888, at Leiden, a Committee was appointed to 

 inquire whether or not the Society ought to support the movement in 

 the Entomological Nomenclature to change generic names hitherto in 

 use, for older names or for quite new ones. 



" The Committee has the honour to lay before the Society the 

 the following report on this question : — 



" The Committee is unanimously of opinion that the ever swelling 

 tide of synonymy must indeed be considered as a real calamity for 

 science ; that the nomenclature ought to possess the greatest possible 

 degree of stability, in order to prevent confusion of genera and 

 species ; and that, therefore, a priori, generally adopted names should 

 not be changed without important reasons. 



" As Linna3us was the first to fix the unsurpassed binary nomencla- 

 ture, the Committee is of opinion that the year 1751 ought to be taken as 

 the commencement of the systematic literature ; this being the date of 

 the publication of the ' Philosophia Botanica,' where the binary system 

 (Latin or Greek generic and specific names) was for the first time 

 applied to Botany. 



" The Committee is quite ready to admit that some older naturalists, 

 Tournefort, Klein, &c, were already before Linnseus aware of the 

 necessity of a binary nomenclature to indicate the objects of the 

 organic world, and occasionally applied it ; the Committee moreover 

 acknowledges that Linnaeus more than once, without any explicable 

 reason, has not given due honour to the great merits of his eminent 

 predecessors, who- — as is proved by Agassiz in his ' Revision of the 

 Echini' — were far in advance of him in the knowledge and classification 

 of some groups of animals ; but the systematic application of this 



