THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 29: 
Now, here are four modes of determining the typical species of a. 
genus, propounded by as many authors, and there may be others for 
aught I know to the contrary, all with the view of simplifying these 
sciences, under the operation of Rule 1. Isit strange that “an incredible 
amount of confusion” is the result ? | 
Linnæus placed under Papilio the princes of the order, and no matter 
what restrictions may have been made hitherto, these hundred years, 
Papilio has always had: a magnificent following, increasing in 
splendor as the years wenton. And now we are told, in 1872, that,. 
in order to save the claims of the hitherto unappreciated Schrank, 
‘who published his speculations in 1801, Papilio is to be ejected from his 
rich possessions, and made to share the rest of his unlucky days with the 
dingy Vanessan to whom hard fate and Mr. Scudder has driven him. No 
more the superb creature we have read of, with “glistering burganet,” 
and “shinie wings as silver bright,”—“ refreshing his sprivhts,” in “ gay 
gardins,” ‘“‘ pasturing on the pleasures,” &c.; but, like Clarion, “ reduced 
to lowest wretchedness,” his good times all over, he flits about in slums 
and nasty lanes—and there we leave him. 
In the explanatory remarks to Rule 4, it is said:—“It is an act of 
justice to the original author that his generic name should never be lost 
sight ef.” By Mr. Scudders new creation the name Papilio is so nearly 
lost sight of that it might as well disappear altogether. _It is certainly 
no compliment to Linnæus to retain it. 
And this brings up the whole question of the obligation of naturalists. 
to adopt whatever system any one may propose. Clearly enough, the 
right of ignoring changes made in Nomenclature is recognized even by 
the most determined advocates of strict priority, when applied to their: 
contemporaries. A genus is set up, andno one tollows it. It happens 
constantly, and it seems to me that in this matter one’s contemporaries. 
are the proper judges of one’s work, and that no reversal of their judg- 
ment may rightfully be looked for from posterity, and therefore the writings. 
asserts that the definitions of a Westwood, or of a Doubleday, are ‘‘ careful and 
elaborate.” I was much struck on reading these words in Cope’s Origin of Genera, 
page 6:—‘‘ The reader will often find introduced into diagnoses of genera characters. 
which indicate nothing of this sort ;” and these, ‘‘adjacent genera of the same series 
differ from each other but by a single character.” From which it may be inferred 
that inordinate length of generic aoe cus is not commendable, and is not properly 
attainable. 
