86 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



This had always been known as the Edusa of Fabricius. In all the 

 lists I have seen, the name has been given as taken from the Mantissa Insec- 

 torum of that author, published in 1787. Mr. Kirby, in his investigations, 

 found the work of Fourcroy on " The Entomology of Paris," and in it this 

 butterfly was called Croceus. Believing this to have priority, he adopted it in 

 his work as the name by which the insect ought to be known. The work of 

 Fourcroy is so little known that Dr. Staudinger had not heard of it, and it is 

 not enumerated in the lengthy list of entomological books given in his larger 

 catalogue. No writer during the hundred years that have passed since it 

 was published appears to have heard of it, for it is never quoted or referred to. 

 Yet it was seriously proposed to abandon the name of Edusa which was in 

 universal use, for one given by an utterly obscure author, to whose work no 

 one could have the opportunity to refer. Could such a change be made in 

 the interests of science ? Ought the law of priority to apply in such a case ? 

 And after all Kirby made a mistake, and the name given by Fabricius stands. 

 Fourcroy's work might have precedence over the Mantissa Insectorum of 1787, 

 but in the Genera Insectorum of the same author, published in 1776, the 

 insect was described for the first time and named Edusa. This error of Mr, 

 Kirby's was not known till recently, and the correct nomenclature was first 

 pointed out by Mr. C. W. Dale, of Glanvilles Wootton, who has a copy of the 

 Genera Insectorum of Fabricius of 1776, formerly belonging to Dr. Solander, 

 and in which he found it described and named. The correction of the 

 synonymy therefore should not be from 



Edusa, Fab., 1787, to 



Croceus, Fourcroy, 1785, 



but to 



Edusa, Fab., 1776, 



Croceus, Fourcroy, 1785. 

 The point to be made by these errors is that even the most careful investi- 

 gators err from incomplete knowledge, and that we may yet find many others 

 of the proposed alterations of nomenclature are equally incorrect when ws 

 know more about them. 



I have spoken as though the priority rule of the British Association ought 

 not to be too strictly interpreted. Do not think I am thus setting up my 

 own opinion against the collective wisdom of which I have expressed approval. 

 It has been held before now that the rule was only intended to apply where 

 common consent was wanting. "When there was universal agreement as to 

 name, no rule was needed. Only when difference of opinion obtained, was an 

 authority required to settle the matter; then the rule would apply. But another 

 decision of the British Association shows that the priority rule was not 



