0 
INTRODUCTION. By Dr. A. Seitz. 
species and in fact certainly with the majority of Heliconiids, and such a procedure could be continued hy 
applying an enormous number of names on insects like Abraxas Grossulariata of which Oberthur illustrates 
150 varieties naming only a very few. Such a nomenclature is unwarranted in all such cases where it is impossible 
to find a number of specimens exactly alike. Whilst it cannot be the task of this work or its supplements to 
lay down hard and fast rules or sift through all the names given up to now, every effort has been made not to 
unnecessarily increase the flood of purposeless names. A distinction must be made in the importance of such 
names and of irregular or artificial forms which have only been mentioned by way of parenthesis and without 
giving further details or characteristics. It is only if the same methods are adopted by others that one may 
hope to put an end in the future to this torrent of descriptions. These threaten to obscure accuracy and we 
wish to strive for quality rather than quantity. 
If the present system of giving names to every chance variety is continued there is every likelihood that 
in the near future names will be allotted to such variations in colours and markings which may yet be possibly 
discovered. For instance with the majority of Erebia there exist specimens both with and without pupilled 
ocelli in the wings and it may be concluded that it is only chance that such anomalies have yet not been found 
in a great number of species, and that their discovery is only a question of time. Therefore anybody calculating 
on this may name all sorts of combinations by a simple form of mathematically applied “variety-formula” as 
already has happened for instance with the Elythren-markings of certain European coleoptera where names 
have been given to colour variations which are known to occur and also to colours that may eventually be 
found (or which it is expected will be found in the course of time) and with these latter a note is made that 
“should such and such an aberration be found it is to be named x. y. z.”. There can be no doubt whatever that 
such methods and provisional denominations should be forbidden. It should be made obligatory that whoever 
claims the discovery of a new type should at least produce the specimen in question. This has however not 
proved practicable so far and therefore the whole matter of giving names remains a question of honour and 
trust. A case in point would be the yellow forms of the genus Zygaena which have occurred in many species 
and there might therefore reasonably be grounds for suspicion when claims are made of the discovery of 
specimens showing this variation in new species. 
The question of new names becomes more difficult still in cases of structural abnormalities where 
abnormal vein formations have been given names. One sided displacement of nervures as occur for instance 
with Aporia crataegi in the monstrous forms of ah. Karschi and ab. Enderleine, are presumably possible in most 
of the Rhopalocera. Such cases being simply abnormalities are as little entitled to have a name of their own 
as a lame horse or a calf born with three legs woidcl be ent itled to be classified as a separate species and with 
a separate scientific name. A hare spotted irregularly, with white on its side would not be given a scientific 
name of its own, and an increase of the multitude of names beyond the limits of reason must be avoided. 
Medical science, whose objects as regards nomenclature are naturally different to those of descriptive 
zoology, should not be referred to as a comparison. Names like Cholera nostras, Typhus abdominalis, Erythema 
nodulosum, occurring in Pathology, and Pygopagus parasiticus in Teratology, are entirely different in their 
way from scientific names for particular animals. We observe new diseases continually developing and for 
this reason must expect corresponding additions in nomenclature. With the Zoological nomenclature however 
there should be the final goal — even if at present it cannot be realised —viz. the time when all forms of animals 
deserving a name have been named with the consequent period of rest i. e. the time when a state of stabilisation 
has been reached. We might then hope to have got to a point where after all questions of priority had been 
settled and all parts of the world had been explored we might rest, or at least have reached a point where the 
addition of new names became a matter of rarity. However far off this time may seem it should not be made 
illusory. On the contrary it should always be the aim to which scientific nomination should strive. 
In the following supplementary volumes to the main Work of “The Macrolepidoptera of the World” 
it is impossible to take up an extreme attitude either in the nomenclature or with the giving of new names. 
The supplementary volumes cannot very well contradict those sections of the Work to which they are a 
supplement. 
The so-called international rules for nomenclature, however, could not be applied to the volumes 
appearing prior to 1914, as they had not been drafted at the time when the earlier chapters of the Work were 
written. Even to-day one must have the impression regarding several of these rules that the present drafting 
will not be final. Considerable differences may occur whilst the Work is being issued and these would cause 
apparent contradictions in the various chapters of the Work. It is hoped to avoid anything that might impair 
the usefulness of the Work. Wherever possible new names or the naming of forms already described has been 
avoided or old names have been adhered to. 
