2580 Entomological Society. 



" 2nd. No two species in the same main group should bear the same specific name. 



" I ask why ? and am told it creates confusion. Are, then, Lepidopterists so much 

 more subject to be confused by repetition of names than students in other branches of 

 Natural History ? In Botany have we not, for instance, an alpina in numberless 

 genera ? and is it not simpler for the memory to retain this name than if we had a 

 different specific name in each genus, intended to designate an alpine habitat for the 

 plant ? And turning to insects, how often in Coleoptera do brevipes, rufipes, &c, 

 occur in the same main groups ! 



" Yet it creates confusion to have a Peronea rufana and a Carpocapsa rufana, and 

 the latter must change its name and become Westwoodiana ! How do we know it 

 will retain that name ? Perchance, before the publication of that name, a Lepidop- 

 terist in New York, Sydney, Calcutta or Kamschatka, has described an Eupaecilia 

 by the name of Westwoodiana ; a new name is then selected for the unfortunate 

 Carpocapsa, which might perhaps again have to undergo the same fate : in short, the 

 poor insect seems likely never to attain that essential requisite, a fixed name, — when 

 lo ! a fortunate chance enables a Swedish student to recognize as a Linnean species 

 the Peronea rufana, W. V. Of course this rufana is now dropped for the older name, 

 and the unfortunate Carpocapsa is allowed quietly to retain its cast-off clothing. 



" I now ask which creates most confusion ? 



" But why should there be more confusion between Peronea rufana and Carpo- 

 capsa rufana than between Pieris Crataegi and Trichiura Crataegi, or between Thecla 

 quercus, Smerinthus quercus and Lasiocampa quercus ? I am told that the limits of 

 our genera are so uncertain that Peronea rufana and Carpocapsa rufana might be 

 placed in the same genus : well ! when that does happen it will be time enough to 

 change one of them ; to change it on the mere contingency is making present confu- 

 sion to prevent some future confusion, which may perhaps never come to pass. 



" 3rd. The name of a Geometra must end in aria, of a Pyralis in alis, of a Tortrix 

 in ana, of a Tinea in ella. 



" Well ! this is creeping into a corner with a vengeance : we begin with a rule ge- 

 neral to all branches of Natural History; to this one objection is raised, applying 

 only to one order of insects; and here we have another objection, actually applying 

 to only a portion of that one order. Truly this absurdity has no limits ! 



" Now I confess myself at a loss how to argue this last point, for I have in vain 

 applied for a reason for this objection, and the only reply that I have ever yet been 

 able to get is, that it is convenient by the termination to know at once to what group 

 an insect belongs : then why not apply it to the other groups ? Moreover, if alis im- 

 plies a Pyralis, what is Bombycia viminalis ? If anus, ana, implies a Tortrix, what 

 are Pamphila sylvanus, Nudaria mundana and Lithosia complana ? If ellus, ella, 

 implies a Tinea, what are Deilephila porcellus, Deiopeia pulchella, Cybosia meso- 

 mella and Setina irrorella ? 



" I should have imagined that the advocates of this system of uniformity might 

 have quoted the example of Linncus ; but he had two terminations for the Geometra?, 

 — aria and ata, — and as the objectors of the present day have thought fit to change 

 all his ata's into aria's, not even being aroused from the folly of their theory by the 

 fact of prunata of Linneus becoming thereby a dropped name, there being already a 

 prunaria : they cannot quote his example as any argument on their side ; and it does 

 not appear that Linncus laid down any rules on this subject: he merely gave, to his 

 Geometra 1 with pectinated antennae the termination aria, — to those with simple an- 



