INTRODUCTION. By Dr. A. Seitz. 
When the “Macrolepidoptera” was first edited in 1905 the experts unexpectedly and flatly rejected 
the rules of nomenclature which had been submitted *). Since then their attitude has generally become a great 
deal more friendly and we are within measurable distance of and the adoption and approval of the working 
of many of the paragraphs of the year 1914 even in entomological circles. It is impossible as yet to speak of 
their definite and final acceptance by Lepidopterists. Rules that are quite old and simply common sense have 
not yet found universal acceptance. It has been recognised for instance long ago that a lepidopteral form 
should be given the name of the form first described also in cases where this name denotes a rarer and more 
inaccessible form. Taking as an example a butterfly most frequently mentioned in literature viz. Golias electo(L.) 
forma crocea Fourcroy; or according to others, Eurymus electo L. crocea etc. With the sole exception of the 
“Novitates Zoologicae” it is not described anywhere in this way. It is mostly mentioned either as “eclusa” or 
“Colias croceus ”. Had we therefore strictly applied the rules of nomenclature to our Work, which is to be 
eventually a book of reference, we should find disparities in 900 out of 1000 cases. An examination of the 
Linnes Collection, or what there is left of it, has further shown that a similar state of affairs prevails with 
other species besides Colias electo. The African form and not the European was the basis’ for Linnes description 
and it had been sent to him by Mr. Brander, Swedish Consul in Algiers at the time. According to researches 
by Verity therefore it is probable that for instance the name (Pap.) podalirius L. refers to the form lotteri 
Aust ., so that the name of P. sinon Poda would be retained by the Central European Type. Staudinger had 
this name in his “Catalogue of Lepidoptera of the European Fauna” (1871). He, however, altered it again in 
the later edition (1901) of the catalogue of palaearctic butterflies into “ podalirius ”, but defining it as the Central 
European Spring-form. From the same point of view the name Epinephela janira L. would have to be used for 
the Central European form of the species specified as jurtina as Linnes label for jurtina is attached to a specimen 
of the Algerian fortunata Alpher, which should now be named jurtina, with the synonym fortunata. 
Although so much has been written on this question, it cannot yet be said that it has been satisfactorily 
solved. It is almost impossible to draw definite conclusions from the kinds of pins used, the setting, the 
labelling, the notes in Linnes manual etc., as to whether this or that specimen in Linnes collection (which is in 
itself now no longer in its original form) was based on a description which may be deemed as legally incontestable. 
So much, however, may be said, the points at issue are to-day much more confused than before the introduction 
of “the rules of nomenclature”. One should bear in mind that nomenclature itself is not a science, but that 
it should be an aid to science. As soon as it proves itself the reverse it is worse than useless, and should be 
opposed. 
We must ask ourselves to-day, whether the continually increasing alterations in names and disputes 
concerning same are not simply wasting valuable time which could be used to greater advantage in advancing 
the work of research. In any case “The Macrolepidoptera of the World” cannot enter into any disputes on the 
question of nomenclature. Only in cases where obvious mistakes have been made these should be corrected, 
but otherwise the space available to each species should be utilised for describing its natural history. Just as 
there are no definite rules for alterations in existing names, so there are no lines laid down as to the giving of 
new names. Seeing that it is becoming a custom to bestow new names wherever a constant, traceable difference 
between individual specimens occurs, the question arises whether also differences — which though they cannot 
be so readily observed by the eye — should be recognised and should be used for the introduction of new names. 
Just as the human ear cannot detect every kind of sound, it is impossible for the eye to discern every existing colour 
and a photographic plate shows spots and markings on the wings of an insect quite clearly that the human 
eye cannot see even with the aid of a magnifying glass. We mention for instance white spots in the red 
apical spot of the species Teracolus. A Work such as “The Macrolepidoptera” cannot undertake to decide this 
question either and must leave the final settlement to those that specialise in this department. 
Of late new names have been given without even substantiating any distinct difference. Even when 
the particular form with its different shape, colour or marking could not be claimed to be constant or due to 
any particular locality or generation there was no hesitation in adopting a name. This plainly originates from 
the view held by some authors, that individual specimens of a species from different localities which are far 
apart could not belong to one race. Likewise the view is frequently held that specimens of different generations 
cannot be exactly alike in every particular, and that in those cases where the distinctions are not apparent 
they ought to be sought as they were sure to be found. On this point we are of the opinion that one should 
keep an open mind. We think names which can only be established by the aid of labels giving locality or date 
are unjustified. In spite of this there are of course cases where such varieties are mentioned, but without 
stating any further particulars. This is only for the sake of completeness and is not to be taken as a recognition 
of their validity. 
*) According to statements by the Secretary of the German zoological Society which gave rise to this inquiry, only 
5 or 6 of all those that were asked had unconditionally approved of the provisory drafting. 
