102 
EUELEMONIA JEHOVAH. 
Eudcemonia Semiramis, Hubner, Verzeichnisz Bekannter Schmetterlinge, 151, 1585 (1816). 
Walker, Cat. B. M., VI, p. 1265 (1855). 
Copiopteryx Semiramis, Duncan, Naturalists’ Library, VII, 125 (1841). 
Eudcemonia Phcenix, Deyrolle, in Maassen’s Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde, Heft I, fig. 5, ? 
figs. 6, 7, S (1869). Ann. de. la. Soc. Ent. Belg., T’. XII, 1 (1869). 
Aricia Phcenix, Felder, Novara, T. 92, 1 9. 
Dekceto, Maassen, Beitrage Schmett., figs. 13, 14, S' (1872). 
Since the publication of this species there have been objections urged to the specific name by which I have designated it, and in some 
few instances from sources for which I have every consideration, but in the major part from those whose good or ill opinion weighs alike 
with me ; to the former only are my present words addressed. 
One friend, in objecting, writes thus: “The name brings up to serious and contemplative minds everything that is sacred if 
such be the case, then indeed am I happy in my selection, for methinks anything that would lead us to think of the Creator, and 
would take our thoughts away from the contemplation of the mimes with which he has peopled the earth, cannot but be well; and what 
better than to reflect on sacred things, — on the evidences of the majesty and power of the Supreme Being? Even as I write, thoughts 
arise of Nineveh in her magnificence, of her utter destruction, of the writing by an unearthly hand on the wall in the Babvlonic palace ; 
and visions of old Egypt’s temples rise up — of the first-born smitten, in that awful night by the death-Angel’s hand, in every home 
throughout the land — of the children of Israel guided by the fiery pillar — of the destruction of Pharaoh’s army — of the Pyramids of 
Cheops, of Karnak, and' of their desolation — of the researches of Champollion and Gliddon, of the quiet resting-place of the latter in 
his vault in Laurel Hill Cemetery, where he has meet company in Drs. Morton, Wilson and Kane. 
Why may not the Hebrew word, used to designate the Supreme Being, be bestowed on a species as well as the Hindostanee, which 
latter has several times been applied to species * and once to a genus ? f Is it because our conventional ears are more familiar with the 
former than with the latter? Had I used the term Pay-ah-taw’vah, it is scarcely likely that much objection would have been raised, 
and yet this is the word used by Dr. Judson to express “ Jehovah” in his translation of the sacred writings into the Burman language. 
It certainly cannot be more offensive to apply sacred names to animals than to persons, and in Spanish countries almost every 
tenth person is surnamed Jesus, pronounced by them, Hezoos ; this may sound shockingly irreverent to the fastidious ears of Americans, 
but I doubt much if the Hidalgoes who bear the name of the second person of the Godhead would feel at all elated to know that their 
sponsors had acted with irreverence, and that they themselves, on account of their names, were living offenses against decency and good 
taste, — and they, too, the most devout and punctilious people on the face of the earth. 
That there should be any reasonable objection to the bestowal of the Creator’s name on one of the most interesting of His works, 
I cannot possibly surmise, and the only cause of ofFense, in scientific nomenclature, is given where the terms are orthographicallv or 
-etymologically incorrect, or where nature’s noble works are degraded to the vile purpose of charioting into notice the names of obscure 
individuals whose only merit in the case was in giving the describer a dinner or lending him money ; or what is worse still, to attach 
to scientific objects the names of political demagogues; this is, without doubt, the vilest of all, especially in our own country where 
political eminence is now solely attained by the most corrupt means, and success ensured only by the sacrifice of every principle of 
honour and honesty. 
There are names enough still left in the grand annals of past history and science, without having recourse to those of persons who, 
however estimable, have no claims for scientific honours. 
There have been hints that, notwithstanding the claims of priority, the specific name I have used will not be accepted ; should 
such be the case, and the name employed by me ignored, it matters nothing, as the species is now known and my work as regards it 
completed in the figuring and description, as far, at least, as at present possible to me, and whether it be known hereafter by the 
name I have used, or by another, can be of no possible moment. 
As genera are each year becoming more and more divided and sub-divided, some aspirant for scientific fame may make of each 
species, comprised at present in Eudffimonia, a new genus, as there is, without doubt, the difference of a brush-hair in the details of 
the several species ; of course, the author of the new arrangement would [dace his own name to the combination, and in that case the 
present species would be the only instance in which the name of the compiler would be secondary to that of the object, though, of 
course, no one could doubt that even then the great synonymist would make a mental reservation in favour of his own superiority. 
In a recent interesting paper on Ent. nomenclature by Dr. J. Leconte, in that influential organ, the Canadian Entomologist, the 
author concludes with the following: “Unfortunately, under the influence of persoual peculiarities, the excitement of political 
struggles,” etc., “ names are sometimes proposed which are in the highest degree offensive.” J After the word “ offensive ” is an asterisk 
(*) which directs us to a foot-note by Mr. Wm. Saunders, the able editor of the periodical, who doubtless fearing that the reader might 
suppose the author alluded to such names as Homoptera Saundersii, Leucanthiza Saundersella, and others of the same nature, gives as 
the benefit of his conjecture, that “the author here evidently alludes to such names as Pleocoma Staff’ Eudsemonia Jehovah, and others 
of the same nature.” 
Professor Huxley somewhere says : “ Happily, the reputation and neal success of a votary of the physical sciences are now 
wholly independent of the periodicals which are pleased to call themselves “ influential organs of public opinion ; ” the only opinion 
he need care about — if he care for any, and he is all the wiser and happier if he care for none — is that of about a dozen men ; two or three 
in these islands, as many in America, and half a dozen on the Continent. If these think well of his work, his reputation is secure from 
all the attacks of all the “ able. editors ” of all the “influential organs” put together.” 
SAM I A EURYALUS. Boisdtjval. 
Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr. Ill, 2me Ser. xxxii (1855). 
Morris, Cat. Lep. N. Am., p. 21 (1860). 
Walker, C. B. M., part XXXII, p. 525 (1865). 
Samia Euryale, Packard, Proceedings Ent. Soc. Phil., Vol. Ill, p. 380 (1864). 
Saturnia Ceanothi, Behr, Proc. California Academy of Sciences, Vol. Ill, part IV (previous to September, 1867). 
Platysamia Californica, Grote. 
* Ilerda Brahma, Moore, Cat. Lep., E. I. C., I, p. 29, T. 1 (1857). 
Papilio Brama, Guerin, Rev. Zool., p. 43, T. 1 (1840). 
fBrahmsea, Walker, C. B. M., VI, p. 1315. 
J I have only quoted portions of the two concluding paragraphs of the article. 
