274 [April, 
those natural odoriferous, we can never be certain that their scent has not 
helped to attract the fly—A.Bert Munurr, Eaton Cottage, South Norwood, S.E. * 
10th February, 1872. 
Sudden and unaccountable disappearance of particular species of insects.—On 
reading over the remarks by Mr. Edward A. Waterhouse on this subject in the 
February number of the Magazine, I am reminded of a circumstance that occurred 
to myself in the first week of July, 1861. I was out on an insect-hunting excursion 
round Lochaber Loch, about five miles from Dumfries, a place at that time very 
famous for Lepidoptera. On returning home by way of Dalscairth, I thought I 
would just look in and see what could be discovered on a small patch of meadow- 
land close by the roadside. Procris statices was hanging on almost every blade of 
grass: I had never seen the insect before. I stood spell-bound with wonder and 
astonishment ; their fine blue-green wings glancing and reflecting in the sun was 
unquestionably the finest entomological sight I ever witnessed. I had with me at 
the time only some ten or twelve empty boxes, which I soon filled, putting three or 
four in a box, without the aid of anet. JI went back next morning, thinking to 
take a good supply, but not one was to be found; nor have I ever met with the 
insect since, although I have never failed to look for it. About the same period 
(1861), Vanessa Io was rather a common butterfly, both in Dumfries and Kirkeud- 
bright: for the last eight or nine years I have not seen a single specimen.—WM. 
LENNON, Crichton Royal Institution, Dumfries: February 8th, 1872. 
On the relation between generic and specific names.—I am glad to find that Dr. 
Sharp is not enamoured of the “deceptive” Pauline, and am much obliged to him 
for his reasons in support of Dr. Staudinger’s conclusion (ante p. 254). But, if my 
friend will excuse me for saying so, I think he misapprehends the Linnean method 
of nomenclature. 
I do not accede to the proposition that ‘‘the name of the species (meaning 
thereby, the specific or trivial name) is the real basis of zoological nomenclature.” 
No doubt, in a mononymic system, each word adopted or formed as the name of a 
species would be or become, when applied to the object, a noun substantive ; and it 
was this very circumstance which necessitated the introduction of a different sys- 
tem of nomenclature. In a mononymic system, we should require as many separate 
nouns as there are objects to be named; if a separate name were framed for each 
species, it would be impossible to recollect them all; the multiplicity of natural 
objects and the weakness of human memory required, therefore, some artifice to 
make it possible to recollect or apply their names. The Linnean artifice is, to 
name an object by means of two steps in the successive division of objects into an 
ordinate system of classification, Each genus has its name, which is a noun sub- 
stantive ; and the species is marked by the addition of some epithet to the name 
of the genus—by the addition of another word, which may be, but is not necessarily, 
a noun substantive; which in fact is more frequently an adjective; and which, 
when a substantive, is epithetic or used adjectivally. 
‘<Insectum nomine generico et specifico rité est nominatum,” as Fabricius hath it 
(Phil. Ent. vii, 53). “ The name of the insect consists of the name of the genus 
as a substantive, and of the name of the species itself as an adjective; the generic 
