4 | June, 
“ the most wholesale changes on sufficient grounds ; but we must draw 
“ the line somewhere.” Now, if we must draw the line somewhere, 
why not draw it with me at June lst, 1871? The whole basis of such 
a principle is the accord of entomologists, and Mr. Kirby can only in- 
vite their consent to a line being drawn at the epoch he names. I 
invite their consent to a line being drawn at another. The question, 
then, depends merely on the balance of convenience and expediency. 
Directly you get to “ drawing lines” anywhere, there is no other con- 
sideration : “ justice to old authors ” has then been already thrown over- 
board, and expediency remains the only test ; and it is precisely when 
you come to expediency that our maxim gathers all its laurels. 
It is expedient to have certainty in nomenclature, and it is ex- 
pedient to have that certainty at once. It is expedient to stop the flow 
of lists whose raison d’étre is the introduction of a few new names, but 
which degrade the science by dictating unexplained changes. 
It is expedient to have no more “synonymy,” a word which has now 
lost all its original meaning. When, out of chaos, “ synonymy” was 
born, it served a very useful object. ‘Then, six persons called the same 
insect by as many different names, because they used different books. 
All the descriptive works on entomology were costly, and few people 
could possess more than their one author. Then, entomologists of 
different countries knew nothing of each other's books, and there was 
real confusion in the names of species and of genera. In short, the 
“error” among entomologists was then not “ communis ;” the majority 
knew nothing of any other name than that which they themselves used. 
The case is now so altered, that “ synonymy ” does not any longer answer 
its former function. All entomologists use one name in the vast 
majority of cases. There is no real confusion, even if different names 
are used; as, in the very few cases of doubt, entomologists know and use 
both the names (e.g., Davus and its synonyms), and no list-writer would 
be much of a guide in such contested cases as those. The evil in fact 
now is felt in quite the opposite direction to that in which it once 
showed itself. Of old, entomologists knew one name only and held to 
it right or wrong: now they are never satisfied. If a name has been 
long and generally in use, it is all the more eligible, the writers seem 
to think, as a victim to the shrine of “ priority.”* This restlessness is 
utterly absurd; but the only cure for it is a good broad rule, that 
entomologists will henceforth ignore all names but those in use now. 
The function of “ synonymy’ now is not to supply a concordance 
* I need not refer to instances ; but Dr. Staudinger’s miscalculated assault on Podalirius has 
become a joke already.—W. A. L. 
