Entomological Society. 2581 



tennae the termination ata, — to the Pyrales the termination alis, — to the Tortrices the 

 termination ana, — and to the Tineae the termination ella ; but that he intended these 

 rules to be so rigid that an insect named as a Tinea should — on being found to be a 

 Tortrix — change its termination, we are surely not warranted to believe. Why should 

 not Pomonella and Turionella retain the names that Linneus gave them ? Moreover, 

 if Turionella becomes — as a Tortrix — Turionawa, what becomes of its parasite, Ich- 

 neumon TurioneZ/«? Besides the last innovation, the change of the ata's into aria's 

 has been of such recent occurrence, that if tamely submitted to as an inevitable in- 

 fliction, it will probably tempt some future writer to give uniform terminations to the 

 Noctuae or other groups of the Lepidoptera. 



" The second fundamental law of entomological nomenclature is — 



" II. No two species in the same genus should bear the same specific name. 



" I am told this is a truism, and needs no argument ; but unless it is adopted, and 

 the first primary law only is considered, we should be obliged to restore to Hypericella, 

 Hbn., the older name of Liturella, Hbn , there being already a Liturella, W. V., in 

 the genus Depressaria : in fact, this law is the only admissable exception to the first 

 law. 



" Since writing the above, my attention has been called to a ' Eeport on the Laws 

 of Zoological Nomenclature,' published in the ' Proceedings of the British Associa- 

 tion,' in 1842, and I find that the following rules were there laid down. 



" 1. The name originally given by the founder of a group or the describer of a 

 species should be permanently retained, to the exclusion of all subsequent synonyms 

 (with the exceptions about to be noticed). 



" 2. The binomial nomenclature having originated with Linneus, the law of 

 priority in respect to nomenclature is not to extend to the writings of antecedent 

 authors. 



"10. A name should be changed which has before been proposed for some other 

 genus in Zoology or Botany, or for some other species in the same genus, when still 

 retained for such genus or species. 



"11. A name may be changed when it implies a false proposition which is likely 

 to propagate important errors. 



"12. A name which has never been clearly defined in some published work should 

 be changed for the earliest name by which the object shall have been so defined. 



" 13. Anew specific name must be given to a species when its old name has been 

 adopted for a genus which includes that species. 



"14. In writing zoological names, the rules of Latin orthography must be ad- 

 hered to. 



" Of these rules, the first two will be unhesitatingly assented to as axioms. Rules 

 3 to 9 inclusive are applicable to genera only, not to species, and thus do not come 

 within the limits of my present inquiry. Rule 10 is identical with my second law, 

 ' that no two species in the same genus should bear the same specific name.' Rule 1 1 

 is the first from which I dissent, ' a name may be changed when it implies a false 

 proposition which is likely to propagate important errors.' This, we are told, ' is a 

 concession to human infirmity,' but I beg leave to decline this concession. The report 

 adds, ' Instances of this kind are indeed very rare, and in some cases, such as that of 

 Monodon, Caprimulgus, Paradisea apoda and Monoculus, they have acquired suffi- 

 cient currency no longer to cause errors, and are therefore retained without change. 

 But when we find a Batrachian reptile named in violation of its true affinities Mas- 

 VII 2 K 



