1872.] 215 
Linné; the second is the quadrifasciatus of Spinola, but not of Fabricius; the 
third is the annulata of Kirby (and indeed of Fabricius, though he is not cited), but 
not of Linné. In such cases the addition of (nec Lin.) or (nec Fab.) would have 
supplied the requisite explanation. 
But Gorytes laticinctus is the G. arenarius of Van der Linden. And although 
St. Fargean’s name laticinctus had an earlier origin than that shewn by Mr. 
Smith (in the first volume of Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., 1832), yet the name arenarius 
dates from 1829, Probably arenarius had, like quadrifasciatus, been anticipated, 
and all that is required is another (nec Lin.) or (nec Fab.) ; though the existence 
of Sphew arenaria, Lin., which before Van der Linden’s day had been allocated to 
the genus Verceris, is not a sufficient ground for rejecting a Gorytes arenarius. Or 
it may be that Mr. Smith declines to depose the name laticinctus, which is in use, 
for arenarius, which has never attained currency. But even the principle of 
**comraunis error” does not explain the adoption of the name Crabro luteipalpis, 
p. 18; as in the last case, St. Fargeau’s luteipalpis is posterior to Van der Linden’s 
elongatulus, and the latter, besides its priority, has the balance of usage in its 
favour, and is employed by Shuckard, Dahlbom, Wesmael, and Thomson. 
There is another class of cases in which Mr. Smith has apparently, though not 
in reality, set the law of priority at defiance. Take e.g. Priocnemis eraltatus, p. 7. 
The earliest authority cited for the specific name is Fab. EH. S. ii. 251, which is 
posterior to Schrank’s name albomaculata (1781) ; but, in truth, the species was 
first described as Sphex exaltata by Fabricius, in 8. H. 351 (1775). So also with 
Crabro varius, bimaculatus, and pallidipalpis (p. 14); if the references given to 
St. Fargeau were the earliest, those names would be posterior to the C. spinipectus, 
geniculatus, and propinquus of Shuckard; but St. Fargeau’s original descriptions in 
the Ann. Soc. Fr. date from 1834, and thus preceded Shuckard (1887). 
This brings me to the remark that in every case the oldest authority for a 
name ought to have been given—followed, of course, by references to the later works 
of the same author or of other authors, when necessary. I am not one of those 
who admit any quasi-proprietary right of the nomenclator in the species he 
describes. The name of an insect is a thing absolute, quite independent of the 
name-giver, and I care not a straw whether it was given by Linné or Fabricius, by 
Latreille or Kirby. The name of the hive-bee is Apis mellifica, not “ Apis mellifica, 
Lin.,” and (except when required for some definite purpose, as e. g. to remove an 
ambiguity, and distinguish between the thing which Linné calls Apis muscorum and 
the other thing which Kirby called by the same name) I hold the practice of tack- 
ing on the nomenclator’s name as a modern custom more honoured in the breach 
thanthe observance. I have no respect for a nomenclator, simply as such; the 
fact that he has been the first to name and describe an insect or a plant gives him, 
in my eyes, no title to immortality, does not even invest him with the faintest halo 
of sanctity. I use the name he has given, not as a recognition of any merit in him, 
or as an admission of any right in-him, but solely from considerations extraneous 
to him. The rule of priority in nomenclature, I hold to be a good rule, within its 
proper limits; it is not an unmixed good: and priority, like any other hobby-horse, 
may be ridden too hard. When the rule is strained beyond the reason for the rule, 
it becomes a nuisance—nay more, it produces intolerable evil; but when reason- 
ably applied, it produces more convenience than inconvenience. I accept it, 
