106 



THE YOUNG NATUEALIST. 



based on, and followed the arrangement and nomenclature of Guenee, but 

 GueneVs nomenclature is open to most serious objections. Take for example 

 one instance, the principle of which is repeated throughout his works again 

 and again. Leucania impura. — Guenee states that the nomenclator of 

 L. impura is Albin. Now how does the matter really stand ? The figuring 

 and descriptions of Alton's works are without names. How then can any 

 name stand on his authority ? Albin figured in 1720 a moth without a name, 

 giving its life history and a description of the moth. Some fifty years after- 

 wards Hiibner figured the same moth under the name of impura. Yet, 

 Guenee says the species is impura, Albin. I suppose Albin never had such a 

 name pass through his mind ; yet the Trench system based on Guenee' s work 

 is full of such synonymy. Dr. Staudinger had all the work of previous 

 synonymists to begin with and to profit by, and as a result produced a mag- 

 nificent work which we all know, and the more I compare the two systems, 

 the more certain do 1 feel, that Dr. Staudinger's arrangement is far ahead of 

 any other. Advancement is. apt to be looked upon — especially by older men 

 — as unnecessary innovation, and as such is sure to be treated, until they 

 become accustomed to the change. The great point to my mind, and the 

 only one in favour of Mr. South' s list is, that by following Staudinger and 

 Wocke's Catalogue in its chief points, he has brought us one step nearer the 

 desired uniformity we all pretend to desire. The great fault is that he has 

 not followed it in detail and brought about the desired result at once. Why 

 do we want to keep on in our narrow insular fashion, perpetuating an old 

 list, which has served its turn well, and which is different to that used by 

 scientific men in almost every other country ? The fact is that all our ad- 

 vanced lepidopterists use Staudinger's list for their Continental work, and 

 then with characteristic English prejudice have a separate one for their 

 British collections. 



Why should we not use this list as the basis of arriving at some satisfac- 

 tory conclusion ? What comparison can be made between our own miserable, 

 little, synonymic (so-called) lists, and this work ; and yet one has corres- 

 pondents writing " Please use ' The Entomologist ' list ! " " Please use the 

 Doubleday list ! " and so on. Is this multiplication of little lists bringing 

 about uniformity ? And yet the compilers of all our lists plume themselves 

 on their wish to bring about this much desired result. If we want uniformity 

 we can get it. Let the responsible editors of our journals sink their person- 

 ality, accept the generally used Staudinger Catalogue as their basis, and 

 where there is a vital error in this list, strive to get it altered. Would 

 the editors do this? In other words — Would it pay to do this? That is 

 the rub ! If the journals adopted a uniform system of synonymy the matter 



