20 THE YOUNG NATUEALIST. 



THE LAW OF PRIORITY. 



The publication of the Entomologist Catalogue of Lepidoptera has awakened 

 considerable interest in matters pertaining to nomenclature, and most of 

 correspondents object to the idea of re-arranging their collections, according 

 to a list that may be superseded by another issued under greater authority. 

 Our own opinion on the subject is unchanged. We want a list issued by 

 the Entomological Society, or better still, if our Entomological Society would 

 invite the leading Societies abroad to join them in a list, the names of which 

 should remain in use, notwithstanding the fact, that some one may subse- 

 quently unearth, in an obscure work, some name or other that had priority 

 over that adopted. Such a list would assimilate the names used here with 

 those used elsewhere, would be accepted by every one, and would stand 

 unchanged for generations. Several of our young readers have asked the 

 meaning of the term "law of priority," as applied to nomenclature. It 

 seems to carry its meaning in its face, but we may say that the law is, that 

 the earliest name, accompanied by a satisfactory description or figure, must 

 be adopted. No matter what inconvenience or worse, naturalists may be put 

 to by the constant changing of names, the law is made to ride over all 

 questions of expediency and advantage. As at present carried out, the " law 

 of priority " is uncertain in its operation, and exceedingly inconvenient in 

 practise. Our readers may wonder when we say that a clearly defined law 

 can be uncertain in its operation. It depends, however, so much on what is 

 considered a satisfactory description of a species, that it really becomes a 

 matter of individual opinion as to which name should stand. One catalogue 

 maker sets aside the work of one author, another accepts it, and the differences 

 we find between one list and another is often a difference of opinion as to 

 whether a certain author's descriptions are sufficient. There is even some 

 doubt as to where the starting point should be. Shall the 10th or 12th 

 edition of the Sy sterna Natura be taken ? Many of the alterations in 

 nomenclature made by Staudinger and adopted in South' s list, are only made 

 because Dr. Staudinger thought the descriptions in the Yienna Catalogue 

 (W.Y.) are not sufficiently explicit. Yet Staudinger himself differentiates 

 the varieties he names, with the briefest possible description, and gives us 

 figures, and a subsequent writer might quote his own words against himself. 



We think also that it is the height of absurdity to set aside the name and 

 description of a well known author, whose works are in every good library, 

 because some obscure writer has been discovered, who in some local catalogue, 

 or other book of small importance, had described the same species and named 

 it differently at an earlier date. To give an illustration, we may refer again 



