JULY 2, 1897. ] 
workers in entomology now suffer would 
have been entirely avoided had the earlier 
authors studied and recognized the work of 
their predecessors, or adopted some such 
rules as are here set forth, beginning from 
the time of Linnzus. The earliest sinner 
in this respect was Fabricius, but Stephens 
in creating the necessity for Rule 48, has 
exhibited even greater ingenuity in his ab- 
errations.” Here, again, isan obvious eth- 
ical principle. We do owe something 
to posterity, notwithstanding the question 
which some wit once asked: “ What has 
posterity done for us?” This debt is in the 
nature of a moral obligation not to consult 
our own present convenience at the expense 
of those who are to come after us. And if 
we may disregard the altruism involved, 
then self-respect and an enlightened selfish- 
ness should alike prompt us to the same end, 
merely as a matter of looking out for our 
own good repute. 
A part of Lord Walsingham’s ‘ Premiss’ 
will be hailed with acclamation by almost 
every American zoologist. Itis as follows: 
“Zoology became an intelligent science 
when it was recognized that every species 
should possess a special name and every 
genus a generic name. This system of 
nomenclature was first enunciated by Lin- 
neeus in the ‘Systema Nature’ (edition X.), 
1758 ; and as we owe the conception of the 
special and generic name to Linnzus, we 
are bound to commence our nomenclature 
from the year 1758, when he published his 
epoch-marking work.” 
Shade of Strickland! Requieseat in pace! 
We do not propose to echo an anthem to 
this requiem, nor even to argue the point; 
for we could say nothing that has not been 
said fully and perfectly well in the A. O. 
U. Code itself in support of this reasonable 
proposition—one of self-evident logical 
necessity; and if what is recorded there 
does not budge our British friends, nothing 
will move them from the isolation of their 
SCIENCE. 
aL 
insularity. We know that most of our re- 
spected colleagues on the other side of the 
herring pond still stand on the rock of of- 
fense, whence to denounce with objurgation 
those who do not subscribe to the B. A. 
Code. Possibly we undertook to split that 
rock with the butt end of our wedge; prob- 
ably Lord Walsingham may prove to have 
insinuated the thin edge from his own coign 
of vantage. He may not be the first among 
English naturalists to favor the heresy of 
“Linneeus at ’58;’ but he is certainly one 
of the strongest, and much may be con- 
fidently anticipated from the force of his 
example. We remember once discussing 
with him in person the ‘American idea’ of 
Trinomials. We may have been persua- 
sive, though we failed to be conclusive, in 
our presentation of that case to his liberal 
and progressive judgment ; but the stand 
he has now taken against the extreme con- 
servatism of his countrymen leads us to 
the confident hope of his enlightenment 
even upon those ‘dark sayings’ of Tri- 
nomialism. If the scales could fall from 
the eyes of such a one as Saul of Tarsus, a 
Paul of London, Cambridge or Merton 
may not be a zoological impossibility in the 
course of natural evolution. 
Passing by most of the Merton rules as 
self-evident, or as admitted by the concen- 
sus of naturalists, or else as peculiar to 
microlepidopterists*, we note some few 
* A valued entomological friend of high standing, 
who has not authorized the use of his name in this 
connection, writes to us regarding some of these: ‘“‘T 
think that most entomologists would take exception 
to the group of rules beginning with No. 19 and end- 
ing with No. 25, except that No. 23, since it begins 
with the words ‘it is advisable,’ is acceptable. Simi- 
larly, under No. 33, e. g., Zeller’s correction is not 
admissible. Under No. 38, the third paragraph, in- 
dicating that the type is the sum of the co-types. 
Mr. Oldfield Thomas’s terms under No. 39 have not 
come into general use, though they are sensible 
enough. Under No. 41: No one accepts the idea that 
the type of the genus is the sum of the species as 
under 2 and 3.”’ 
