1871.3 3 
pre-occupied, because Paternoster Row had that name first given to it, 
and is so termed by many classical authors. Science, it is true, is ever- 
lasting ; but those who pursue it are only men. 
I will not say that the books in which the old names are now being 
found are really not worth the study they receive; but at all events it 
is sought to make us pay them a reverence which would be altogetber 
misplaced. In a science where fresh discoveries are being made every 
year, the newest book ought to be the best ; and the greater number of 
the old entomological books are now, by comparison, very inferior 
affairs, whose counterpart would, in the present day, find no sale. To 
ascribe to one of such productions the authority of a classic would bea 
ridiculous piece of fetishism. In truth, those descriptive works are valua- 
ble chiefly as old books are always valuable ; and they show the growth 
of knowledge. Old books always interest a good many; and I confess 
to entertaining a suspicion that those who make so much of these just 
now have taken to their studies the predispositions of the antiquary, 
rather than the cool scrutiny of the entomologist. 
Bat it is suggested that justice to the first nomenclator requires 
that the name given by him should be adopted ; and this, being an ad 
populum argument, is the only one whose influence with entomologists 
I have at all feared. The very “ injustice,’ however, which our rule 
would do, is done already by some of the most enlightened of our 
opponents. 
“ Viavere fortes ante Agamemnona” 
—and learned men wrote before Linné. But, while the brave who lived 
too early for Homer died and made no sign, the entomologists who pre- 
ceded Linneus have left us the records of their labours. There is no 
reason at all (which, as I think, will bear a breath of discussion) why 
the work of these men should be passed over; and I am at a loss to 
know how the advocates of these everlasting changes reconcile their 
demand for “ justice ” to the “old” authors with their abrupt refusal 
of it to those older still. Mr. Kirby, in particular, is most stern in his 
dealings with the writers who so far forgot themselves as to publish 
books before 1767. Their indecent haste to enlighten the world re- 
ceives punishment with very short shrift. In a letter which I have 
had the pleasure to receive from him this month, he gives me his judg- 
ment in these words: “ It seems to me that to go beyond 1767 would 
“ overturn the very foundations of our scientific nomenclature, and 
make us take the name principissa for Lathonia, from the first edition 
‘* of the ‘ Fauna Suecica ;’ call the mole-cricket Gryllo-talpa, Mouffet (or, 
‘“* perhaps, Aristotle ?), and put ourselves hopelessly to sea. Iadvocate 
66 
