THE SUBSTITUTE; 
Or, Entomological Exchange Facilitator, and 
Entomologist’s Fire-side Companion. 
No. 2.] SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1856. [Pbice 2d. 
CHANGE OP NiMES. 
“What’s in a name? A rose 
by any other name would smell 
as sweet.” This may be a true 
sentiment in many senses and on 
nnany occasions, but it is one the 
entomologist abhors. Without 
names insects become of little 
account to him, and, as Linnaeus 
has said, “ without names the 
knowledge of things perishes.” 
To the unscientific entomologist, 
the maker of a collection, the 
change of names constantly going 
on produces the same eflect as if 
the insects had no names at all. 
One name is to him as good as 
another ; and he cannot conceive 
why bis old friends should have 
new titles. It would be better, no 
doubt, if we could so accumulate 
our knowledge that a name once 
given should stand for ever, but 
from the very conditions of our 
existence such prescient power 
can never be ours. We have no 
wish to justify all modern changes 
of nomenclature; yet something 
must be conceded to the necessity 
which the discovery of an immense 
number of species has laid upon 
‘ scientific entomologists to class 
I the additions under new generic 
' heads, rather than to cram them 
I under the old ones, which did well 
< enough for the species known 
uvhen they were instituted, but 
' which cannot, with any propriety, 
! be made to cover the variations of 
structure since made familiar to 
us. 
Unfortunately there is no canon 
for the construction of genera, 
arising out of a knowledge of the 
system of nature, so absolute that 
it must be followed ; and so, every 
author, seeing only a little of the 
great scheme of creation, more or 
less according to his elevation, 
does that which is right in his 
own eyes, dissects or amalgamates 
the genera of his predecessors, 
and in his turn has his work sub- 
jected to the same treatment. 
The progress of discovery, or 
the extension of our knowdedge, 
having made necessary the multi- 
plication of genera, all that we 
should insist upon is that they are 
not founded upon trivial differ- 
ences, and that where nature has 
joined species together they should 
not be put asunder. A new generic 
name is bad enough for the un- 
learned, but the change of specific 
names is the most annoying; yet 
when it arises from the principle 
of the restitution of an old name, 
that principle is so sound that 
whatever temporary inconvenience 
may be caused to the multitude, 
who do not care to know the rea- 
son why, it must be upheld. But 
where the change is merely on 
account of some crotchet or indi- 
vidual dogma, it ought to be op- 
posed as needlessly embarrassing 
both to scientific and unscientific 
men. There are already existing 
c 
