142 [ November, 
Notes on Nomenclature.—For the sake of brevity, I shall confine myself at present 
to clearing up some misapprehensions which exist respecting Linnean names, and 
some minor points. Mr. Crotch (EK. M. M., viii, p. 71) states that, when Linneeus ap- | 
pended “ vulgo Morio,”’ “vulgo Satyrus,” &c., to some of his descriptions in the first 
edition of the “Fauna Suecica”’ (1746), he did not regard these as specific names. 
In the eighth edition of the ‘‘Systema Nature” (1753), I find under each genus a 
list of the species described and named in the “ Fauna Suecica,” ed. i, mostly with 
the same names. In Syst. Nat., ed. x (1758), p. 481, I find the following note : 
© Trivialia nomina nonnulla, in Faun. Suec. quondam vage imposita, mutarvi, ut con- | 
formia evaderent per singulos ordines.”’ Some of these rejected names (called 
“ trivial” by Linnzeus himself,—“ specific” in his phraseology), were subsequently 
adopted by Esper, Retzius, and others. I admit that the date of 1767 (Syst. Nat., 
ed. xii), sanctioned by the British Association as the commencement of our nomen- | 
clature, cannot be defended, because the species then described by Linnzeus must 
be identified by descriptions published by him in 1761 and 1764. It must, however, 
be observed that few changes of importance in nomenclature were made by Linnzeus | 
subsequently to 1758, except changing a name which had been used twice in a 
genus, or sinking one of two synonyms, unfortunately, generally, the earliest. 
Therefore, if we go beyond 1758 (not 1767) for specific names of Lepidoptera, we © 
should really find ourselves in chaos; and, in alluding to Aristotle, I did not mean 
more than this. It isassumed that “ to draw the line ” is to yield the main point in 
dispute ; but the line cannot be drawn further back than the commencement of | 
systematic nomenclature itself; 7. e, the works of Linneus. The controversy | 
hinges mainly on the question whether the knot of synonymy should be cut or 
untied. 
Mr. Briggs assumes that the older name has generally been changed for the 
better ; but in most cases it has been changed for one or cther of three reasons, of 
each of which I quote an example from Doubleday’s Catalogue: 1, imperfect infor- 
mation, Hadena assimilis, Doubl., corrected into Crymodes exulis in the addenda; 
2, capricious changes, Chortobius, Guen.—Cenonympha, Hiibn., for which Guenée is 
responsible ; 3, names retained in error, Hrebia Medea, W. V. (=ethiops, Esp.) 
named, but not described in W. V. I have fallen into this last error in my own 
work.—W. F. Kirsy, Dublin, August 2nd, 1871. 
Aevigw : 
A Synonymic Caranogur or Drurnat Lupiporrpra, by W. F. Kirby. 
8vo, 690 pp. London: John Van Voorst, 1871. 
It is well known that Mr. Kirby has for some years been engaged in the com- 
pilation of the volume now under consideration, and we congratulate him upon the 
completion of his gigantic undertaking. That the term we use is fully justified will 
readily be admitted, when we state that the described species of Butterflies now 
reach the enormous number of 7,700, and that, with the synonymy, the number of 
references is estimated at 10,000. It is not our purpose here to criticise the author’s 
views as to genera and species, nor to enter into an examination of the nomencla- 
ture adopted ; we look at the book simply from the point of its being an index to 
the study of the subject, indispensably necessary to every one engaged in forming: 
