108 
MEAGRE DESCRIPTIONS OF SOME NEW SPECIES, Ac. 
contemporary genus, Colias ; so we have also Colias Argante, Hubner, and as his genera Phcebis and Murtia are also contemporary with 
the above, and embrace insects structurally the same as in his Catopsilia and Colias, we then also have Phcebis Argante, Hubner, and 
Murtia Argante, Hubner, and later Dr. Boisduval placed Argante in his genus Callidryas, where we have Callidryas Argante of that 
author. Again, of Pararge Maera , Linnaeus’ species : During the time that has elapsed since Linnaeus first described it as Papilio 
Maera, it has been Dira Maera, Pararge Maera, Satyrus Maera, Lasiomrnata Maera, Hipparchia Maera and Amecera Maera. Is this not 
enough to condemn a system which could only have had its foundation on personal vanity ? It is a very convenient thing for the 
author of a new genus founded, in most instances, on some infinitesimal point, to place in it the species of Linnteus, Fabricius, Hubner, 
etc., etc., and then to attach his own name to each species so pirated, or else to resurrect some obsolete or forgotten genus and to crowd 
into it the species of various authors, living and dead, and behind each such combination to place the name of the industrious researcher 
who exhumed from the dust on the top shelf of some library the doubtful genus. This procedure is precisely analogous to that of a sign- 
painter placing a picture of Rembrandt’s in a frame of somebody or other’s make, and erasing the artist’s name from the picture and 
the maker’s from the back of the frame, and then putting his own more important name across the face of both picture and frame, and 
of course rendering both valueless by the hideous defacement. 
The specific name is and always will be the abiding one, always standing inta-ct, the one by which we designate the object, though 
bandied from genus to genus ; the generic name is ephemeral, — a thing, as it were, of to-day — therefore it is of the utmost consequence 
that the authority for the species be given, doubly necessary on the account of the hosts of synonyms which, with frightful recklessness, 
ambitious aspirants are continually overloading science. 
As regards the “ catalogues which are always at hand,” that may be so in large cities blessed with such Entomological Libraries as 
that of the Acad. Aat. Sc. of Philadelphia, or the Peabody Institute of Baltimore, etc., or where the student fortunately possesses amide 
means to enable him to obtain all the requisite literature ; but to the less fortunate, but perhaps equally zealous student, who neither 
lives in a large city nor is blessed (or cursed, as demagogues preach, ) with wealth, it would be in the highest degree inconvenient, for 
when we see the species’ name we want to know something about it, why so named, where found, etc., — facts which generally are only 
fully recorded in the original description, and which we like to see ourselves and not depend entirely on others, however reliable. 
As the learned Dr. says, “whether the author’s name remains connected permanently with his observation, or not, is a 
matter of small importance.” Unfortunately, were that same name not to the species many and many an error now rectified would be 
still undetected ; the ill with the good we must take, and tolerate the pitiful vanity that influences some to consider that the name placed 
behind their species should be printed in golden (brazen ) letters, in order to eventually arrive at the truth. Finally, I would add that 
not only should the author of the specific name be added, but also the work, vol. and page in which his species was first described should 
be cited ; this would save many precious hours to those who, too often, are obliged to encroach on time that should be devoted to lucra- 
tive pursuits, in order to pursue their unremunerative but beloved and fascinating studies. 
Feb. 22 , 1875 . 
