Du 
+) 
94 (September, 
It must be remembered that this is not the only “law” now in use to promote 
accord; where the same person describes different sewves of the same insect under 
different names, another “law’’ comes into operation—the entomological “jus 
mariti’’—a “law” made to aid “accord” in cases where the “law” of priority 
cannot. I own that this “jus mariti” has recently been condemned by the dic- 
tum of an eminent “ catalogologist,” but as the dictum was only based upon a de- 
bateable theory, it has found few (if any) supporters. The whole scope and opera- 
tion of these two laws—the “law” of priority and the ‘‘jus mariti”—clearly point 
that they were intended as special laws meant to make, not subvert, accord. 
I look upon the accord of entomologists as a “law” of itself, governing and 
paramount to both these special “laws ;” where there is want of accord we have 
resource to one of them to obtain that accord, but, where accord exists already, I say 
that we have no right to call either law into operation; they are not wanted, and I 
look upon the present resurrectional movements as a tortuous application of a use- 
ful law. 
Mr. McLachlan, in answer to Mr. Lewis, says: “ By applying his maxim 
“ communis error facit jus, Mr. Lewis would draw alineand say, henceforward there 
“shall be no change; whatever may be the errors, or however glaring and ridicu- 
“lous they may prove in the sequel, from this time they shall pass uncorrected ; 
“nay, more, they shall no longer pass as errors, but as unimpeachable truths.” 
Will Mr. Lewis’ paper possibly bear a construction of this sort? accord is his domi- 
nant point; the proposition there laid down is, “ No name shall be received hence- 
forth to the displacement of a universally recognised name.” Both sides agree that the 
accord of entomologists is the ultimate desideratum, but the ‘“‘ resurrectionists ”’ 
seem to consider that fishing out the most ancient name and repealing all the sub- 
sequent, is a better way of arriving at that result than by letting a name accepted 
by common consent stand, and abrogating the obsolete!! I hold, as I have before 
stated, that the “law” of priority is not that the oldest name of an insect is in- 
variably its right one, as the resurrectionists now insist, but that, in cases of dispute, 
the prior name is to be preferred, and in such cases only ; and that any attempt to — 
subvert accord cannot be done under the “law” of priority, but we must make a 
new ‘‘law,” the “ law” of antiquity, say, were the scientific names created or evolu- 
ted at the same time as the insects themselves ; such a law might be useful as indi- 
cating the remoteness of their origin ; but surely Mr. McLachlan will agree that 
there were more veal errors in the infancy of the science than now. Mistaken in- 
formation and limited observation naturally produced “ errors” in nomenclature, ur 
if not errors, objectionable names, which progressive science has since corrected or 
altered by common accord; and now we are asked to say that all the accord of en- 
tomologists shall never correct, alter, or vary any original name, whether right or 
wrong; that the original name shall be used, in many cases, to upset the corrected 
mistake, and restore the original pure, unadulterated ‘‘error”!!! Shall entomo- 
logical science be progressive in everything except names? In most cases the 
name now in use is the far preferable one, having some more immediate relation to 
the creature’s habits and mode of life, or else the name now in use would never have 
been chosen by common consent; for we cannot suppose that all the well-known 
names now condemned by the “ resurrectionists ” were chosen in ignorance of the 
prior name. They were, in many gases, chesen because it was more beneficial to 
4 
