THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
93 
THE ACCENTUATED LIST. 
To the Editor of the ‘ Intelligencer.' 
Sir, — I am quite disappointed by the 
unfavourable notices of the * Accentuated 
List’ in the ‘Intelligencer.’ My own 
opinion is that it is a great boon, not 
only to the unlearned, but to the mode- 
rately learned also. There can be no 
doubt that there was a great want of such 
a work ; to me it seems that the present 
work supplies that want. The Entomo- 
logical Societies of the two Universities 
undertook a task peculiarly suitable to 
them, and they have accomplished it in 
a manner which appears to me to deserve 
the thanks of entomologists. Their main 
objects were two, to rule the pronuncia- 
tion of the scientific names, and, when 
practicable, to give the derivations and 
reasons of those names. On the first of 
these they have brought to bear that ex- 
tensive classical learning and that ac- 
curate scholarship which we had a right 
to expect from Members oflearned Uni- 
versities. Here lay their strength, and 
they have put it out in a way which 
ought to make this work an authority 
on the pronunciation of entomological 
names. The same qualifications fitted 
them for the accomplishment of their 
second object, the derivations and reasons 
of the names; but, as a considerable ac- 
quaintance with the history and literature 
of Entomology was requisite for this part 
of their work, our thanks are also due to 
those eminent entomologists by whose 
kindness they were enabled to collect so 
much interesting information from beyond 
the classical pale. These were the two 
great objects proposed, and perhaps there 
are few competent judges but will rise 
from an examination of the ‘ Accentuated 
List’ with the conviction that it has at- 
tained these objects. 
The remaining matter consists of a 
Preface and short sketches of the lives of 
leading entomologists past and present. 
The former, though unexpected, is by no 
means, to me, an unwelcome addition to 
the book ; and I think there are many 
who have not, like yourself, an extensive 
entomological library, who will be glad to 
refer to this compendious biographical 
dictionary for the explanation of those 
W. Us., Fischs., Iiaws. and Scops., which 
have so long added obscurity to the ob- 
scure science of synonyms. 
I shall conclude with a few remarks on 
the Preface, which is a very important 
part of the work. 
1. It would not be fair to blame the 
authors for the arrangement which they 
have adopted. Arrangement was not 
their province ; and they cannot be said 
to have acted unreasonably in giving a 
preference to the latest, and what ap- 
peared likely to be the most popular 
arrangement, the eccentricities of which 
must be laid at the doors of its proper 
parents. 
2. With regard to the changes in some 
of the names, it cannot be doubted that, 
owing to the want of classical learning 
among entomologists, names have been 
formed in violation of classical rules; and 
that some names, correctly formed at first, 
have got wrong in the press, and the 
errors become stereotyped. If error then 
is ever to be corrected, changes in these 
names must be made. In attempting 
these changes the authors of the ‘ Ac- 
centuated List’ have thought it their 
duty to adhere strictly to recognised rules, 
disregarding euphony, it may be thought, 
but therein following the example of many 
distinguished nomenclators before them. 
It might, however, have appeared less 
presumptuous if they had printed the old 
name as that of the insect, and included 
their proposed correction in brackets ; and 
here it may be remarked that they have 
not in all cases adhered to their rule of 
bracketing the old name, as may be seen 
in Lubricipes (p. 12), Helvola (p. 11), 
&c., &c. 
3. In No. 137 of the ‘Intelligencer’ 
