1896.] EULBS or zootoGtOAt ifoMSNot A.Ttma. S2l 



Bpecific names were given to natural objects only in order that 

 naturalists might know what they were talking and writing about. 

 He thought that uniformity was much more important than pro- 

 priety, and the only way of solving a difficulty that was yearly 

 increasing would be to appoint International Committees in various 

 branches of science, which should be empowered to fix as a starting- 

 point for specific nomenclature some very much more recent period 

 than that of Linnaeus. Whenever a catalogue or standard work 

 in any branch of Zoology could be found, such as Staudinger's 

 ' Catalogue of Palaearctic Lepidoptera,' 1871, the nomenclature of 

 which was based on a careful study, and a sufficient knowledge of 

 the natural objects of which it treated, so that its nomenclature 

 had been almost universally accepted and adopted, he would accept 

 its specific names right or wrong, and look on any attempt to go 

 back to earlier authors, many of whom knew little or nothing of 

 the species they attempted to describe, as a great injury to science. 

 It was very often impossible to know with certainty what these 

 authors meant, and even when the types existed they were 

 frequently, as in the case of many of Walker's so-called types of 

 Lepidoptera, worse than useless. Such changes would not, of 

 course, apply to generic names, which must be altered as our know- 

 ledge increased. He saw no reason why names used in Botany 

 should not also be used in Zoology, and agreed with Mr. Hartert, 

 that no practical confusion resulted from this being done. With 

 regard to trinomials, he saw no means of doing without them, 

 but preferred them to be used with the prefix of var., ab., hyhr., or 

 gen., so as to indicate, more precisely than could be done without 

 such a prefix, their relation to the species from which they spring. 

 Such prefixes had been employed most properly in Staudinger s 

 catalogue, and their proper use was well understood, though there 

 was some danger of their undue multiplication without sufficient 

 definition. He thought that Dr. Sclater had done a great service to 

 science in raising this discussion, which he hoped would not be 

 allowed to drop without result. 



Dr. D. Sharp, F.Il.S., said the German Eules were not drawn 

 up in a way to be practically useful. In the case of each one it 

 should have been stated whether it was merely prospective or was 

 intended to be also retrospective in application ; and if limited to 

 the former, to what extent neglect of the rule was to disqualify a 

 name. If these points were not agreed on, the adoption of these 

 rules would add to the existing confusion. He further pointed out 

 that the application of the law of priority had in Entomology failed 

 to produce the agreement that its advocates claimed it would pro- 

 mote. Some names had now been in use for generations with two 

 different applications, naturalists being apparently divided into 

 two schools. 



Mr. W. T. Blanfoud, F.R.S., said that nomenclature was simply 



a matter of convenience, and he thought it hardly worth the labour 



to draw up another code of rules, because they would be sure to be 



subject to difierent interpretations. He objected to the use of 



Peoc. Zool. 800.— 1896, No. XXI. 21 



