166 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 
The following resolution in reference to the above was also recom- 
mended by the Standing Committee of the American Association, and 
adopted :— 
“ Resolved, That the American Association for the Advancement of 
“ Science hereby endorses the accompanying memorial, and invites the 
“ Entomological Societies to call yearly meetings of their members, in 
‘ accordance with the request therein contained.” 
Mr. Riley, from the Committee appointed a year ago on Nomen- 
clature, requested that in view of the absence of some of its members, the 
Committee be dismissed. On motion a new Committee was appointed. 
consisting of Messrs. Edwards, Scudder, Riley, Bethune, and LeConte, to 
report at the next annual meeting of the American Association, a code of 
rules, to be discussed and adopted at said meeting, regarding a uniform: 
nomenclature for the guidance of American Entomologists. 
Several Entomological papers were read before Section B. of the 
American Association; one being by Mr. Grote, entitled ‘ Remarks on. 
the Origin of Insects, and on the Antennal Characters in the Butterflies. 
and Moths ;” another by Dr. J. L. LeConte, “ Hints for the Promotion 
of Economic Entomology in the United States ;” a third by P. R. Uhler 
‘ On a Remarkable Group of Wasps’ Nests Found in a Hollow Stump in 
“Maryland ; ” a fourth by Cyrus Thomas, ‘ On the Identity of the Locust 
of the Prophet Joel with the Oedifoda migratoria of Europe,” and a fifth 
by W. L. Coffinberry, ‘ On Spiders.”. 
The meeting was a very pleasant one to the Entomologists, and 
enabied them not only to freely exchange opinions respecting subjects of 
wide spread interest, but also to get a glance at the interesting Fauna of 
the regions which they visited. 
THE LAW OF PRIORITY IN NOMENCLATURE. 
BY H. K. MORRISON, OLD CAMBRIDGE, MASS. 
In a recent article in the ENTOMOLOGIST it is proposed to obviate the 
confusion in which our nomenclature is involved, by accepting the names. 
most generally in use and allowing the law of priority (if it does not 
make too much trouble !) to determine all questions which may hereafter 
come up; ignoring entirely the claims of older authors and of writers 
holding different opinions from the proposers of the scheme. ‘This 
