85 
the Natural History Museum at South Kensington—who had been 
working at the question of nomenclature on his own account, produced 
A Synonymic List of European Wiopalocera, a work well worthy to rank 
with Staudinger’s second edition. He accepts to the full the law of 
priority, but differs from Staudinger in some of the details of its appli¬ 
cation ; in particular, giving a much greater authoritative value to the 
Vienna Catalogue. This work was the subject of a crushing review in 
the Zoologist by Newman, in which he expends the vials of his wrath 
on the “ law of priority,” and all its supporters; six months later he 
renews the assault in a review of a pamphlet on the subject by Mr. 
Lewis, but strangely winds up the latter article with these words, “We 
must by some law dispose of one of two names. If “priority” be not 
that “ law,” what is ?” At the end of last year (1892) Mr. Kirby published 
the first vol. of a similar work dealing with the Heterocera. In 1873, 
Doubleday produced a final supplement to his list, in which the earlier 
one of 1865 was incorporated. This,, however, has never been much 
followed. Finally, in 1884, appeared the Entomologist Synonymic List 
by Mr. South. This, so far as trivial nomenclature goes, is, for the 
Macro-lepidoptera, an almost exact reproduction of that adopted by 
Staudinger, only nine names being essentially different; additional 
synonyms of British authors—with whom Staudinger confesses himself 
imperfectly acquainted—are, however, added. As regards the Micro- 
lepicloptera, Wocke’s nomenclature is not so closely followed, the Editor 
having considered it in the light of the researches made by English 
workers like Barrett and Stainton. It must be mentioned that 
Staudinger’s classification and arrangement are not reproduced by 
Mr. South, who prefers to take that of Boisduval and Guenee, repro¬ 
duced by Doubleday, as his basis, altering it as little as possible. Of 
Macro-lepidoptera, 165 of Doubleday’s trivial names are replaced by 
others; in some cases, as parallelaria and virgularia, the change is a 
return to the names used by Doubleday in his first edition. The 
changes are in the main due, 1st, to the more rigorous application by 
Staudinger of the “ law of priority; ” 2nd, to the resuscitation by 
Staudinger of Hufnagel and Bottemburg; 3rd, to the extent to which 
Staudinger rejects the authority of the Vienna Catalogue; the 
latter being, probably, the most influential factor of all. It may 
be interesting to trace the application of these principles in two 
or three illustrative examples taken from our butterflies. Lyccena alsus 
is an illustration of the first of them. Alsu's is a Vienna Catalogue name, 
(1776.) The insect is described under that name by Fabricius, in 1787, 
and has generally received the same name from succeeding authors. 
Fuessli, however, a bookseller and publisher of Zurich, had accurately 
described the insect in 1775 under the name of minimus in a Catalogue of 
Swiss insects, and Esper adopts this name, which is indubitably the 
earlier of the two, and is quoted as a synonym by Haworth. Hesperia 
linea illustrates the resuscitation of Hufnagel. Linea is also a Vienna 
Catalogue name, vouched for by Fabricius, and adopted by Hiibner and 
later writers. Hufnagel, however, had described the insect imperfectly 
m 1766 under the name of fhaumas, but Bottemburg, in 1775, by his 
notes, makes the identification certain. Esper and Borkhausen adopt 
Hufnagel’s name, which is also used by Lewin, in 1795, and was known 
to Haworth. There is some doubt whether Poda had not described the 
same insect under the name of sylvestris, in 1761. Fabricius, Esper, and 
