252 [September, 1890. 



particular instance on the neuration of the wing, the shape of the costa or hind 

 margin, the form of some sexual or other organ of the imago, or some peculiarity 

 of the ovum, larva, or pupa ? each of which may mark different relationships of the 

 same species, genus, family, or what not) ; and, on the strength of this, to tell us 

 that the order should be different. 



What other criterion, then, are we to take to help us in cases where natural 

 affinity gives our catalogue makers too much scope in airing their superior powers of 

 annoyance? Surely, it must be the very commonplace but useful one of custom. 

 In other words, some well known and widely used catalogue should be taken as the 

 basis, and no alterations of order allowed in it, except in cases where it is clearly 

 shown that a species, or group of species, has been placed between two other species 

 or groups to which it has no close natural affinities, while another place can be found 

 for it between two other species or groups to which it is closely related. Thus, when 

 it is clearly shown that Aventia flexida is out of place among the Macarida, and 

 will be among its kindred at the end of the Koctitina, let no considerations of ancient 

 custom or honoured authority stand in the way of such a correction. On the other 

 hand, if some one suddenly wakes up to the obvious fact that the Pterophoi-ina have 

 close affinities to other groups besides the Tineina, however astonished he may be 

 that he had not grasped the fact before, he should not be allowed to give us all the 

 needless and objectless trouble involved in the emission of a fresh catalogue. He 

 can occupy himself, as others had before him, in pointing out the affinities which 

 have struck him, thus helping to show how our clumsy methods are certain to fail in 

 completely representing Nature's da;dalean works, rather than adding another proof 

 of how readily one maker of lists will fall into the very trap, the existence of which 

 he has so ingeniously demonstrated. 



Here it may be permitted to insert a disclaimer. Let no collector despise, and 

 let no one think that this paper is meant to depreciate, the work of him who 

 patiently investigates relationships. We can all see a superficial resemblance 

 between j!ex«/a and the Macari(P, between caruleocephaJa and some of the Bomby- 

 ciform Noctiiina. But the secrets which Dame Nature has to teach us are not 

 delivered up to superficial observers ; and the riddles, to the solution of which 

 accurate classification helps to afford a guide, can only be solved by perseveringly 

 following up all the clues afforded by the various parts and organs, and in their 

 various stages of development. All that this paper has so far proved is, first, the 

 fact that the catalogue maker cannot by any means in his power make his catalogue 

 express all, or nearly all, the results of these enquiries ; and secondly, the necessary 

 corollary, that he must be satisfied with the more commonplace, but, nevertheless, 

 the exceedingly useful duty of affording both collectors, and also more scientific 

 workers, a handy means of reference to the objects of their pursuit and study. 



We now come to the second branch of our enquiry. Can any change of 

 nomenclature be of itself an advantage to a catalogue as a means of reference ? If 

 80, such changes should be made in addition to those already granted to be allowable. 

 One regrets to have to admit that there may be such changes to be made. It is, 

 unfortunately, a matter of common knowledge that the various catalogues now cur- 

 rent in our own country differ irder se, not only as to order, but also as to 

 nomenclature ; and it would clearly be an advantage so to alter them as to secure 

 ONCE AND FOE ALL absolute uniformity in these respects. Much more would it be 



