42 (July, 
‘‘ take the earliest or the latest works of Linnzeus to begin with ; and, if we take the 
** earliest, we are met with the difficulty that Linneeus himself changed the names 
** of several of his own species in his different works.” I allude here to the first 
edition of Linnzeus’ Fauna Suecica (1746), in which he has given names to many of 
the species described, but not to all. With scarcely an exception, these names, apply- 
ing to a great number of our commonest insects, were changed by Linneus himself, in 
his Systema Nature (ed. 10, 1758), and subsequent works. Should 1758 be event- 
ually fixed, as will probably be the case, for the commencement of our specific 
nomenclature, that date will admit the important works of Poda, Scopoli, and 
Miller, without compelling us to return to the Linnean names of 1746. But the 
twelfth edition of Linnzeus’ Systema Naturze (1767), is the date fixed by the Rules of 
the British Association for Zoological nomenclature; and these rules are at present 
considered binding on Zoologists. An international congress of naturalists would 
be very desirable to reconsider, and, if necessary, to revise, them. 
One great object of synonymy is to attempt to utilise the whole of the accumu- 
lated literature of entomology; and the conscientious attempts which are now 
being made by Werneburg, Butler, Staudinger, and others,* to apply the law of 
priority to entomology more thoroughly than formerly, will eventually, it may be 
hoped, place our nomenclature on a firmer basis than at present. Errors will of 
course occur, and some temporary confusion ; but the difficulty caused by the doubt 
about the dates of 1758 or 1767 being the starting-point is limited, and can be got 
over. The changes necessitated by an application of the law of priority to the 
names of species are comparatively small, but appear more extensive than they 
really are, because they necessarily occur most frequently among common species. 
The real sources of confusion to be feared are not the honest applications of the law 
of priority, but the attempts to evade it, as in Guenée’s substitution of his MS. 
name Chortobius for Cenonympha, Hiibner, merely because the French entomolo- 
gists reject all Hubner’s generic names, even if they have been adopted by every 
one else. 
I cannot admit that synonymy is of less use now than formerly ; for no one can 
have access to all the books in any branch of entomology ; and, if he have a limited 
library, and identify an insect by a name which has been overlooked by later 
authors, it is useless to him. If the law of priority were rescinded, no one would 
any longer take the trouble to identify any species he intended to describe as new, 
and we shonld soon have twenty new names for every old name, which would other- 
wise have been restored. 
In the compilation of my forthcoming “ Catalogue of Diurnal Lepidoptera,” 
there were but two courses open to me, either to adopt Doubleday, Hewitson and 
Westwood’s ‘‘ Genera of Diurnal Lepidoptera,’ as an unassailable starting-point 
(which would correspond to the course advocated by Mr. Lewis), or to consult the 
whole literature of the subject, and test every name employed by the Rules of the 
British Association. This latter is the system of which Mr. Lewis disapproves so 
much.—W. F. Kirpy, Dublin, June 2nd, 1871. 
Entomological Nomenclature.—I do not think Mr. Lewis will find himself mis- 
taken in expecting the support of Lepidopterists in the opinions he has so ably ad- * 
vanced. It certainly is high time that we had some recognised nomenclature in 
* A careful perusal of Von Harold’s paper on Nomenclature (Coleopterologische Hefte, vi, 
1870, pp. 37—69), is recommended to all who doubt the utility of the so-called “resurrection 
if Cc. R 
men.”—E. C, R. 
