58 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



plain that this so-called law of priority should have prevented Mr. South 

 from adopting Wallengren's recent division of the old genus " Pterophorus" 

 into Amblyptilia, Mimtfseoptilus, &c, &c, surely if this so-called law is good 

 for specific names, then it is good for generic and family names/' Pterophorus 

 was the name given to the whole of the plume moths, and any name to be 

 synonymous with Pterophorus must embrace in its definition the same 

 species. But all the new genera are constructed to include only a small part 

 of the species embraced by Pterophorus, and a part cannot be the same thing 

 as the whole. The greater includes the less, but it is not synonymous with 

 it. If any future author should propose to split up Eupithecia into half a 

 dozen new genera it would be no violation of the law of priority. When 

 synonyms occur in generic names they are treated in the same manner as 

 those in specific names 



Mr. Gregson fails he says to see the relationship between C. festaliella and 

 the plumes ! ! " I see little difficulty in locating species near them, but I see 

 an insuperable difficulty in placing them amongst any other family," which 

 can only mean that although there are other species closely related to the 

 plumes, the plumes are not closely related to these other species. The 

 author's intention here is not very obvious. One thing, however, most will 

 admit, the Pterophorid® are not closely related to the genus Nepticula. 

 Fleming Road, Lorvimou Square, S.E. 



To the Editor of the Young Naturalist. 



Dear SiR, 



Will you kindly permit a Young Naturalist to say a few words 

 on the question of Scientific nomenclature? In spite of what so great an 

 authority as Mr. C. S. Qregson maintains on the other side, it seems to me 

 to be obvious that, if we use the Latin language for purposes of nomenclature, 

 we ought, at least, to make an attempt to see that the Latin words we use 

 are properly constructed. For instance, it would not have been very difficult 

 for Mr. Gregson to have found out, before naming one of his many captures, 

 that Britannodactylus was certainly more correct inform than Britainadactylus* 

 though, I am afraid, this six syllables make both words rather clumsy. We 

 have no more justification for abusing the Latin language than we should 

 have for mis-spelling our mother tongue. Ignorance in either case may be 

 pleaded as an excuse, but the ignorance which contents itself with sneering 

 at learning is thoroughly contemptible. — I am, yours faithfully, Herbert 

 Chitty, Balliol College, Oxford. 



* See the Young Nataralist for February 1885, p. 34- 



