1871 J 93 
[We have extracted and translated the above interesting notice as an instance 
of the fact frequently observed in the habits of insects, that some species, without 
being actually parasites or carnivorous, are, nevertheless, dependent upon, or take 
advantage of others for their very existence. The part of the French Annals in 
which it occurs will henceforth be of historic interest. It purports to be the 
“deuxiéme et troisitme trimestre,’ for 1870, and on the cover is dated 31st 
December, 1870. It arrived in London only during the month of June. The 
meetings of the Society have been held regularly, during all the troubles, in 
the house of the Assistant Librarian, M. Fallou, though we hear that often not 
more than five members were present.—EDs. | 
Ts the ‘ instinct’ of bees ever at fault ?—It is generally considered that one of the 
best proofs of the superior intelligence of bees is shown in the manner in which 
they find their hives or nests, though their ‘ business’ may have led them immense 
distances from home. This evening, a circumstance occurred which leads me to 
imagine that, however great may be their appreciation of locality im its compari- 
tively broad sense, they sometimes fail to unerringly remember exact spots. At 8 
p-m. I observed an Osmia, evidently returning home after its day’s work, angrily 
buzzing about my garden wall. I watched it for fully ten minutes, and during that 
time it entered all the crevices in the bricks or mortar for a space of at least 
three yards; going in and disappearing and immediately emerging. However, at 
last, it evidently found the right crevice, and was seen no more. Can its potations 
of nectar have had any effect upon it similar to that sometimes experienced by 
animals far higher in the scale when returning home late at night P—R. McLacunan, 
Lewisham, 16th July, 1871. 
Law of Priority versus Accord.—Mr. Lewis’ valuable paper on Scientific Nomen- 
clature has produced supporters of the so-called “law” of priority, as endeavoured 
to be extended in the present day. The “law,” as 1 have always hitherto under- 
stood it, is that, when different individuals have described the same insect at different 
times wnder different names, the name first given shall have priority over all subsequent 
names ; but, like all laws that lay down a general precept only, it must be construed 
in the spirit in which it was made, which is, as I urge, only as a means of deter- 
mining a right to a name when there is no accord. 
I believe I am correct in stating that the “law” has hitherto, by common ac- 
cord, been confined to names given since the binomial nomenclature, and to the 
“language” of ‘“ Entomological Latin,’—two points lost sight of by Mr. Kirby in 
suggesting Gryllo-talpa, Aristotle ? and also, as I have always hitherto considered, 
as subservient to, and as a means of promoting, accord. If once it is to be held that 
the law is superior to accord, no such limits can be assigned to it. No final date 
of 1746, 1758, or 1767, as urged by Mr. Kirby, can be laid down as a starting point ; 
for such a starting point could only be fixed by accord, and if once we say that the 
“Jaw” is paramount to accord, under what authority could we find such a starting 
point ? In such event, every insect capable of identification must henceforth carry 
the name under which it was first called—no matter by whom—no matter the lan- 
guage. The American fire-fly must bear its Indian appellation—the “ Palmer 
worm” and “ Canker worm” must have their “ prior” names restored. We must 
carry the law back without limit—even to chaos itself—the only result of which 
would be that Entomological Nomenclature would soon resume its “lost ancestral 
form.” 
