l893 .] THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 163 



of the British Association for Zoological Nomenclature, and these rules 

 are at present considered binding on Zoologists." Now for more than 

 twenty years this statement has passed unchallenged, and I am now 

 to believe Dr. Buckell in preference to Messrs. Kirby and Robson.* 

 Mr. Kirby also states in the Linnaean Proceedings for 1869 that " to 

 admit the claims of any author previous to the year 1767 would be 

 simply to introduce an element of additional and very serious confusion 

 into our already sufficiently confused synonomy." This will account 

 for what Dr. Buckell calls profound animosity to the works of Dr. 

 Staudinger on my part. 



A work I should strongly advise Dr. Buckell to read and study, is 

 the " Philosophia Entomologica " of Fabricius, drawn up on the plan 

 of the " Philosophia Botanica " of Linnaeus. 



Dr. Buckell accuses me of confounding the Hufnagel of the Berlin 

 Magazine, with the Hoefnagel of a century earlier. This is hardly 

 worth taking notice of, except to warn Entomologists of the future not 

 to confuse Dr. Buckell with the late Mr. Buckler. 



We next come to the Sinon-Podalirius question. Here Dr. Buckell 

 says that I misquote Staudinger. Am I the first to raise this 

 question ? Mr. Arnold Lewis says : " Dr. Staudinger's miscalculated 

 assault on Podalirius has become a joke already " (" Entomological 

 Monthly Magazine," Vol. VIII., p. 4, Note at bottom). But have I 

 misquoted him ? It is all very well to have an addenda and corri- 

 genda at the end of a volume, but that is no excuse for a gross error 

 in the first reference on the first page. But Dr. Buckell goes on to say 

 that "After all, Poda, in 1761, was the first to describe the insect." 

 Is this a correct statement ? In the footnote on page 463, which Dr. 

 Buckell refers to in the following reference — Ray Insects, III, n. 3. I 

 turn to Ray and find the insect fully described by him. Linnaeus 

 refers to Ray's description, and bestows a name upon the insect. 

 Perhaps Dr. Buckell will say he ought to have copied Ray's description 

 instead of only referring to it. 



I give Dr. Buckell a word of thanks for correcting the error I fell 

 into in giving Edusa, Fab. 1776, as being the insect we know by that 

 name. I have just read the description carefully through, and 

 acknowledge my fault, and am very sorry for my error. But is 

 Hyale, L,.=Edusa, Auct. ? Dr. Buckell evidently thinks not, and brings 



* I regret to say I am not an authority on this subject, not having had any 

 opportunity for original investigation. The statement referred to was founded on 

 similar passages elsewhere. I have, however, a very strong opinion of the absurdity 

 of basing our nomenclature on that of Linnaeus, and yet rejecting his finished work 

 of 1767, for the earlier and less perfect edition of 1758. I cannot see either that we 

 should set aside the collective judgment of the British Association in this matter, on 

 the mere ipse dixit of Dr. Staudinger. — J. E. Robson. 



