THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 167 
proposal, notwithstanding its arbitrary and unscientific character, and its 
injustice to other Entomologists, would perhaps be accepted by those who | 
have more regard for present convenience than for the establishment of a 
solid foundation for Entomological Science. Unfortunately, however, the 
proposition, although at first view practicable, leaves the matter exactly 
where it stood before. 
Where is the authority that will be accepted by everyone when that 
authority is governed, not by those fixed laws which should determine 
questions of scientific nomenclature, but by individual opinion, the con- 
venience of some particular class, or of the present generation of 
students ? Surely Mr. Mead does not intend, as would be inferred from 
his article in the June number of the Enromctocist, that we should 
accept the most recent names, or those which, having been published in 
this country or by some well-known author, are more familiar to or more 
generally in use among American naturalists. 
There are a few species, which from the excellence of their original 
description and plates, or from their recent publication, have no 
synonymy ; these are the only species which can be properly considered 
as accepted dy a/7 (if we reject priority.) 
All that the friends of priority ask is that it should be allowed to 
decide between names already zz wse. Allowing that the term ‘in use” 
should be applied in science to any name attached to a recognizable 
description, published in a work which is or has been on sale; names 
which are advanced in pamphlets printed for the private use of the 
author, and only distributed among his friends; and in state agricultural 
reports not for sale (except at second hand) can not be considered as 
published at all. 
To determine whether a description is recognizable or not is a matter 
of much more difficulty, for here the judgment of individual students 
would be likely to differ very much. We do not believe that every name 
advanced by the older authors, often with but a line or two of loose 
description, or a plate giving only a general idea of form and color, should 
be retained. We do think, however, that whenever there exists a valid 
description, the law of priority should take its course. In some cases in 
which the description is not definite enough to determine the species, but 
there exist authenticated types ; and in those cases in which the species is 
