324 Dr. H. Schaum on the Restoration of 



added to the name the words '* supra viridi-brunnea, subtiis 

 rubro-testacea." 



Unfortunately notices so utterly valueless abound in various 

 papers and periodicals, greatly to the detriment of science; nor 

 will they cease to make their appearance until it is laid down as 

 a principle, by all scientific men, that, for the benefit of science, 

 such notices have no claim whatsoever to priority. 



The essential condition to a species being described is this,^ — 

 that (if not all the principal) at least some of its distinctive 

 characters are pointed out, so that some possibility exists of its 

 recognition by another Entomologist. If this condition is not 

 fulfilled the species is not " described," however long and tedious 

 may be the author's allusion to insignificant and unnecessary 

 details. And " descriptions" (so called) of great length do often 

 come under this category, — as Mr. Wollaston will fully acknow- 

 ledge with regard to M. Brulle's compositions on Canarian 

 Cohoptera. 



I doubt whether this principle will be objected to by any one 

 in theory ; a few may, however, urge that the decision as to 

 whether an insect is described or not will be attended with much 

 difficulty in practice, and they will consider it more convenient to 

 compare not the descriptions themselves but the dates of their 

 appearance. But what would they say if a physician should for 

 his greater convenience treat all his patients after one general 

 prescription, without inquiring into the details of the case and 

 acting according to the individual constitution? Are human 

 beings, endowed with judgment and reason, to set the latter aside 

 by proceeding thus mechanically, or, on the other hand, are they 

 to employ them ? At all events these opponents are bound to 

 state where they will trace the limit as to whether a species is 

 described or not, since they will certainly not consider Hister 

 australis, Boisd. and Coccinella virescens, Hope, to be in any way 

 " described." 



Starting from this principle, — that the words of an author must 

 render the genus or species recognisable, if either the one or the 

 other is to be considered described, I cannot adopt Mr. Water- 

 house's practice of restoring names given by Stephens and 

 Marsham, which had no currency, even in England (because they 

 could not be ascertained from their books), when by thus doing he 

 reinstates such names to species which were universally known and 

 clearly described under other names of a posterior date. In the 

 majority of these cases Mr. Waterhouse did not ascertain those 

 older names by the study of the books, but merely by the investi- 



