88 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



MSS., but while there ma} 7 be some propriety in honouring the first dis- 

 coverer of a new species, I can see none in giving such honour to one who 

 merely suggested a name for it. In any case the interest of Science should 

 have the prior consideration. It was subsequently found that Zellers name 

 had priority and Artemisiella falls into the second place, but the puzzle 

 remains as before. A hundred years hence, the resurrection men of that 

 time will have a nice little riddle to solve. 



Copying without verification leads to many .an error, and they pass from 

 one to another till it is hard to say where the mistake arose. In Mr. South' s 

 list, the hybrid between S. populi and ocellatus is called 



" Hybridus, Westwood." 

 I am not aware that Westwood ever suggested such a name. It is cer- 

 tainly not to be found in his well known work, though a figure of the hybrid 

 is given there. The error has apparently been caused in this way. When 

 Dr. Staudinger gives a name in his catalogue that has not been given before, 

 he does not add any initials or contraction, leaving it to be understood that 

 when these are wanting it is then named for the first time, and there 

 generally follows a brief description. In this case while he is naming the 

 hybrid himself, he gives a reference to the figure in Westwood's work. Mr. 

 South would appear to have copied this reference to the figure, as though it 

 were an authority for the name. It ought to be 

 Hybridus, Staud. Cat. 



Having pointed out errors in the leading catalogues, I will leave my 

 own more humble list for others to pick holes in. It only pretended to be a 

 list of names in use here, with the authority for those preferred by others. 

 Erom it any one can form their own opinion as to which should be adopted. 



But I must not conclude without making some suggestions as to how we 

 might to obtain that uniformity in nomenclature we all pretend to desire. 

 This cannot be had without every one making some concessions to others, and 

 for my part I care little what is conceded if only uniformity can be attained. 

 I have already given reasons why the revised work of Linnseus should be 

 taken as the starting point, rather than the earlier and less perfect edition. 

 The fact that fixing the date at 1767 rather than 1758 excludes the works 

 of Poda, Scopoli, &c, which Mr. Kirby appears to think an argument in 

 favour of the earlier date, is from my standpoiut just the reverse. The more 

 we can exclude the better. The earlier works on entomology are very imper- 

 fect both in description and figures, and whatever value they doubtless 

 were then, their total rejection would not be of serious consequence now. 

 A very bad figure of Papilio mackaon would readily be recognized in a work 

 on British butterflies, but more careful drawing "would be needed before we 



