October, 1890. J 253 



an advantage so to alter both British and foreign lists as to secure the same uni- 

 formity in all. Is it too much to hope that this may yet be secured, subject only to 

 correction in those very i*are cases where an insect, or group of insects, has, through 

 ignorance of its life-history or otherwise, been placed in an absolutely incongruous 

 neighbourliood ? 



To secure uniformity of nomenclature, the so-called law of priority was invented. 

 And with two slight modifications, this " law," or more properly canon, appears to 

 be almost perfectly adapted to attain the desired end. What these modifications 

 should be, can be best learnt from an examination of the diSiculties to which (he 

 application of the canon has given rise in practice. Catalogue makers seem to have 

 entirely forgotten the object of tlie canon, wliich was designed to obtain uniformity, 

 and to have persuaded themselves that the memory of any more ancient writer is 

 actually wronged, if a name given by a subsequent writer is preferred to his. They, 

 therefore, set to work to unearth more and more ancient descriptions and names, 

 and having found them, cannot rest content without publishing their success to the 

 world. The antiquarian delights of such work sliould be a sufficient reward for the 

 labour bestowed on it, and such delights are by no means small. But, unfortunately, 

 it has become the inveterate custom for these antiquarians to call down mingled 

 glory and anathemas on their own heads by compelling their fellow-entomologists to 

 learn the results of their researches at the risk of being thought behind the times 

 if they refuse. To correct this very natural tendency, it will only be necessary to 

 fix on a limit in time (as has been done in the classification of certain branches of 

 zoology) beyond which antiquarian zeal shall have to content itself with being its 

 own reward. And this course is readily seen to be reasonable, as the earliest writers 

 on entomology were usually contented with such slight, loose descriptions, that it is 

 in very many cases easier to guess than to be certain of the species to which any 

 description is intended to apply. Yery similar considerations lead to the further 

 rule, that no earlier name should be preferred to a well established one, unless there 

 can be no reasonable doubt what insect was intended to be described under the 

 earlier name, and that the description includes no more than one species. In fact, 

 the substitution of less known names for well known ones, which is at present the 

 great aim of catalogue makers, should be rigorously discouraged, except with the 

 one object of uniformity. 



There is still one question to be disposed of, and this is really the most thorny 

 of all. How far is it allowable to split up so-called genera into sub-genera and 

 species into varieties or sub-species ? With regard to genera and sub-genera, there 

 is no doubt that these are mei'ely artificial groups, introduced for convenience, and 

 separated from each other by distinctions of very varying value. That being so, 

 the question of convenience is practically the only one to be considered. There are 

 several of such groups which are cumbersome from the number of species comprised 

 in each. Where any natural line of sub-division, however slight, can be found in 

 such groups, it is clearly an advantage to make use of it ; and a catalogue in which, 

 for example, the group collected by Mr. Stainton under the generic name Oelechia 

 has been broken up into several distinct and sufBciently recognisable genera, is so far 

 a better one, so that one would gladly see such a genus as Nepticula similarly dealt 

 with, if only it were possible. When, however, we discuss the value of specific dis- 

 tinctions, we are met by a further difiiculty in the existence of two separate theories 

 on the subject ; one school contending that species arc divided by an impassable 



Z 



