1872.] 253 
on which they feed ; other examples are given in the Psychide and in the Phry- 
ganide, these two last being instances of repetition also. Some Geometre, as 
Phorodesma bajularia and P. smaragdaria have this same protective instinct. 
Mimicry confined to one sex is rare in British insects,—the female Pezomachi, 
perhaps, giving an example of this; mere repetition in the female only, occurs in 
Lycena Corydon and Lycena Adonis. 
This slight sketch of mimetic instances is intended to direct attention to the 
subject, in the hope that some entomologist may give a more complete essay 
on it. 
Before concluding this notice, I would just add, that mimicry is not confined 
to insects,—the colouring of beasts, birds, and especially of reptiles, all illustrate it : 
again, the genus Heliconia itself is not better imitated than is the autumnal crocus 
(Crocus nudiflorus) by the poisonous Colchicum autumnale; nay, we even find 
excellent examples of mimicry in inanimate things, such as many isomorphous 
salts: for example, the harmless tribasic phosphates and the poisonous arseniates. 
All these considerations make the subject a most difficult one, yet, perhaps, on 
that very account more worthy of study.—R. C. R. Jorpan, 35, Harborne Road, 
Birmingham: February, 1872. 
Anagrams and Nonsense-names in scientific nomenclature.—In the recently- 
issued Record of Zoological Literature for 1870 (to which I hope all the readers of 
this Magazine are or will become Subscribers, for Entomology obtains the hon’s 
share of the volume), I find at p. 269 the following :—“ Rhywabis [qu. Rywabis, 
anagram of Bryawvis 7], Westw., Tr. E. Soc. 1870, p. 131.” On reference to the 
“Mr. H. Soc.” it will be found that the name is there given as Rywabis, not 
Rhyxabis.* But if my learned friend the Recorder is wrong in his citation, he is 
right in his conjecture. 
Doubtless, Ryrabis is an anagram of Bryawis, just as the preceding genera 
Sintectes and Phalepsus are anagrams of Ctenistes and Pselaphus. Apropos of this 
Ptinus-Tipnus-Niptus-Nitpus-ism, I quote the following from the Rules for Zoological 
Nomenclature approved by the British Association in 1842. 
“* Nonsense names.—Some authors, having found difficulty in selecting generic 
names which have not been used before, have adopted the plan of coining words at 
random, without any derivation or meaning whatever. The following are examples: 
Viralva, Xema, Azeca, Assiminia, Quedius, Spisula. To the same class we may 
refer anagrams of other generic names, as Dacelo and Cedola of Alcedo, Zaporna 
of Porzana, &c. Such verbal trifling as this is in very bad taste, and is especially 
calculated to bring the science into contempt. It finds no precedent in the 
Augustan age of Latin, but can be compared only to the puerile quibblings of the 
middle ages. It is contrary to the genius of all languages, which appear never to 
produce new words by spontaneous generation, but always to derive them from 
some other source, however distant or obscure. And it is peculiarly annoying to 
the etymologist, who, after seeking in vain through the vast storehouses of human 
language for the parentage of such words, discovers at last that he has been 
pursuing an ignis fatwus.” 
* Mea maxima culpa! My pen, I suppose, was so accustomed to the more correct Rhynchites, 
Rhinomacer, Rhizophagus, Rhipi(do)phorus, &c., that it led me into this error. I may here notice 
another grievous mistake, lately pointed out to me, in my portion of the ‘‘ Zoological Record :” 
I have, among my very numerous quotations of Thomson’s name, wrongfully, on one occasion, 
allowed the printer to caricature that learned Swede by the name of ‘“‘ Thompson,”—with a ‘‘p.”— 
E. C. R. 
