THE GANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 39 
expressed idea, but rather on the universal practice of mankind, which 
always upholds stability of nomenclature, ‘and requires cogent reasons of 
beauty or convenience to sanction itsalteration. * * * * * * 
“The proper Rule to adopt (instead of Rule 1 of Brit. Ass’n.) would 
have been wuchangeability of names in use, rather than priority of date, 
which latter rule ought only to have been brought in to decide on the 
claims of two or’more names in use, not to retain obsolete names never 
in use, or long ago rejected.—/did. 
“What we want for the sake of knowledge is stability and uniformity 
of nomenclature, not an upsetting of it by the substitution of old, forgotten 
and very doubtful names, published in works without, or with very little 
scientific merit.”—Dr. Schaum, on Nomenclature of British Carabidae, Ent. 
Ann., 1860. 
“The rule of priority in Nomenclature, I hold to be a good rule within 
its proper limits; it is not an unmixed good; and priority, like every 
other hobby-horse, may be ridden too hard. | When the rule is strained 
beyond the reason for the rule, it becomes a nuisance,—nay more, it pro- 
duces intolerable evil; but when reasonably applied, it. produces more 
convenience than inconvenience. I acceptit, therefore, as a rule for con- 
venience, and nothing more, a rule adopted for the benefit of science, not 
for the glorification of name givers.,—F. WW. Dunning, Ent. Mo. Mag., 
vol. 8, 215. 
“ In systematic nomenclature the object is to register titles, not to 
gratify pride, and the names of authors are appended for convenience, not 
fame; the question of justice or injustice has no place here.”—Scudder, 
Am. Fo. Arts and Sci., 1872. 
“Both sides agree that the accord of Entomologists is the ultimate 
-desideratum. I hold that the law of priority is not that the oldest name 
of an insect is invariably the right one, but that in cases of dispute, the 
prior name is to be preferred, and in such cases only ; and that any at- 
tempt to subvert accord cannot be done under the law of priority, but we 
must make a new law—the law of antiguity-say. * * * * In such 
event, every insect capable of identification must henceforth carry the 
name under which it was first called—no matter by whom—no matter 
the language. The American fire-fly must bear its Indian appellation— 
the ‘ Palmer-worm’ and the ‘Canker-worm’ must have their ‘ prior’ names 
restored ; we must carry the law back without limit—even to chaos itself.” 
—T. H. Briggs, Ent. Mo. Mag. vol. 8, p. 93. 
