SCIENCE-GOSSIP. 



alone some naturalists have contended will the 

 existing confusion be eventually counteracted and 

 nomenclature established on unalterable principles. 

 Until the arrival of this golden age. however, must 

 we still hug the mortification of having frequently 

 to unlearn what has been acquired by a no means 

 easy process, and destroy the harmony of associa- 

 tion of well-established names with the species to 

 which they refer ? Much time usually elapses 

 before a name freshly utilised serves to call to 

 mind its peculiar genus or species, and we have no 

 guarantee that it will not be soon again upset in 

 favour of some prior name. The most advisable 

 course to adopt, so far as I am able to judge, 

 where an organism has been named and the name 

 given has by continued use caused its species to be 

 readily called to mind, would be to waive entirely 

 the law of priority and to follow the usage. The 

 main requirements of a system of nomenclature 

 haviDg been met, all other names appertaining to 

 the same species to be ranked as synonyms. With 

 regard to odonata alone, there are many 

 sufficiently definite and well-established names 

 that under a strict application of the law of 

 priority must need be sunk in favour of other 

 designations far less expressive of specific traits ; 

 because they have been rescued from an obscurity 

 to which they would be well again consigned. 

 Such a case is presented by the use of 'Sympeti um 

 (Newman), instead of the equally expressive and 

 far better known Diplax of Charpentier. the 

 former having been alluded to in few terms in the 

 "Entomological Magazine." The argument for 

 the use of Sympctrum is that a type was assigned to 

 it, whilst Diplax was instituted without, and with 

 insufficient characterization. 



It is here, however, surely better on many 

 grounds to follow usage rather than priority. 

 Thus in this instance, Diplax has many derivative 

 -Sympitrum none, and naturalists can ill 

 afford to neglect such aids to the study of 

 affinities as are to be found in the indications to 

 tbeir authors' views of relativity as are furnished 

 by the use of derived names. If, under the laws 

 of pr; .'drum is to take the place of 



Diflax, these indications arc at once lost sight of, 

 and nothing had in exchange but needless 

 obscurity. This point seems to have been entirely 

 lost sight of in the melee of nomenclators. I 

 argue. round generic name 



'.turn be retained, that such derived names as 

 Tktiadtplax should be altered to Thetatym) 



bat is far mo- ilar on 



account of the number of d< the holding 



■lux as the gcr. 



iiance ; in this case tbi 

 no less than twenty-eight i - Mr Kirby 



argued in the Inir 

 change of this name I that 



Crenigomphus should then be Creniashna, and so 

 forth. Fabricius's name is, however, inadmissible, 

 inasmuch as the spelling is erroneous and conflicts 

 with /Eschna, the name of a totally different group, 

 which should, strictly on that account, be renamed. 

 Fabricius, however, did not indicate a special type 

 for JEshna, whilst Leach, in leaving this latter name 

 unrecognised, indicated the species vulgatissimus 

 as the type of his genus Gomphus. This name 

 should therefore stand. It occurs also in botany, 

 (in fungology), but the prior use is in odonata. 

 Yet another instance from the odonata. There 

 are many derivatives of the na.m&Agrion, this name 

 meaning the smaller species termed by Mr. Kirby, 

 Ccenagyion. He considers Latreille to have assigned 

 the species termed by the French, " Demoiselles," 

 as types of this genus. This Latreille, how- 

 ever, does not especially do, and the prolonged 

 usage of the name in connection with such species 

 as puella should be sufficient to allow of that 

 conception remaining intact, otherwise the de- 

 rivatives should be altered to Megapocoenagrion, 

 Anomalocoenagrion and such-like ineuphonious and 

 anomalous appellatives. 



Numerous instances in other departments will 

 doubtless occur to the reader. This then is in 

 itself perhaps the weightiest argument for a con- 

 tinued use of well-established titles. Granting that 

 scientific nomenclature commenced with Linne, 

 until lately systematists could not agree as to which 

 edition, the tenth or twelfth, of his " Systema 

 Naturae " should be accepted as a basis of priority. 

 The whole question as it now stands is a splendid 

 farce. Dr. Pascoe has well remarked that the law 

 of priority, if carried out in its entirety, even with 

 regard to insects, would make confusion worse 

 confounded. It is certain we cannot safely carry 

 the law further back than Linne, for who cay say 

 what were the Cossus and Buprcstis of the ancients ? 

 Without doubt, the Cossus of Grasco-Koman times 

 ranked with the coleoptera and not with lepidop- 

 tera, as at present accepted. 



In connection with generic titles, it is a great pity 

 that names of like derivation cannot be restricted 

 to one group of animals. As matters now stand 

 we have Lesles in odonata, and Microlestes in 

 mammalia. The first title has many derivatives 

 in odonate genera ; I think none elsewhere, with the 

 exception mentioned; Microlestes again means 

 " in.-i.il Lestes," and by " the eternal fitness of 

 this latter has been tacked on to a mammal 

 many thou times larger than the odonate. 



The German nil ti nd to eliminate bui ii 

 undesirable osaj i 



Another point of great moment I with regard to 



Si n i .-i names Specific oi -■ nerii , 



they should be expressive of some character 



possess'." I by il"- species Towards this end ii 



WOUld l><; as well for future iiom'-in l.ilor . lo 





