212 



THE YOUNG NATUEALIST. 



tibilities, would have rufa take its place. I care nothing whether they use 

 one or the other, but one name is wrong and the other right, and they may 

 as well use the right as the wrong. 



By reference to my note, ante p.p. 116, 117, it will be seen that I first 

 gave Haworth's description, and, I believe, proved beyond doubt, that 

 Haworth's n^=Treitschke's despecta. 



The second paragraph contains the gist of the matter. Why copy GueneVs 

 doubtful quotation " rufa, Haw. ? " instead of simply writing rufa, Haw. 

 I think I have proved that the " ? " existed only in GueneVs mind, probably 

 owing to his ignorance of British insects, and Mr. Eobson owns that he 

 accepted the " ? " without reference. Had he referred, there is no doubt 

 that he would have left out the "? " the same as I should do. Of course, 

 if the law of priority is not to be a dead letter altogether, rufa must take 

 priority of despecta. A.D. 1803 is not near the boundary line of the Lin- 

 n?ean X. or XII. edition question. As far as I am concerned personally, it 

 matters not whether lepidopterists use rufa, Haw., or despecta, Tr., as I 

 understand what is meant by either, but there should be no question about 

 rufa being the prior name ; and as for not altering the name because our 

 entomological grandfathers made a mistake, and because the unscientific 

 lepidopterists, who find it too much trouble to learn a new name when they 

 are convinced of error, simply because they are used to it, cry out against it. 

 Well, to say the least of it, it is not science. I simply wished to show that 

 there was no doubt Haworth's rufa was our insect, i.e. Newman's rufa. Mr. 

 Eobson practically admits this in his reply, and, as far as I am concerned, 

 there is an end of the matter. I may add that it is more than probable that 

 Haworth's book never was investigated by either Treitschke, Geyer, or 

 Herrich-Schaffer, and by Guenee only through Doubleday. I fail to see 

 any agreement of rejection by these investigators, as they probably played the 

 usual game of " follow my leader," accepting the German, i.e. the only name 

 known to them. 



But Mr. Eobson opens up other points. He states that " Hiibner, Hupon- 

 chel, Herrich-Schaffer, and Guenee used despecta, whilst only Lederer used 

 rufa. 31 Does that prove that the first four were right, simply because they 

 outnumbered the other side ? If so, it is a case of " might is right " with a 

 vengeance. 



Again, Mr. Eobson is in error. Hiibner never used the name despecta 

 at all. It is in his " Europaischer Schmet/' I know (figures 751 and 752), 

 but it is in that part of the work added as a supplement by Geyer, after 

 Hiibner's death. It is quoted, incorrectly of course, by synomymists as 

 Hiibner's work. I think GueneVs practice in this matter is to be com- 



