37 
however, goes further back still, and calls attention to what is un¬ 
doubtedly the fact, that Scopoli, in 1763, had most accurately 
described the insect under the name of alexis. The insect described 
two years earlier by Poda may be the same, but this is doubtful. If, 
therefore, the “ law of priority ” is to be strictly applied, we must, 
with Kirby, call the insect alexis, the insect at present called by that 
name having undoubtedly to take in its place the earlier icarus of 
Kottemburg. 
Having now dealt with trivial nomenclature in the past and present, 
I turn, if your patience is not exhausted, to the future. Stainton, in a 
paper read to the Entomological Society in 1849, well says:—“ In nomen¬ 
clature it is of the greatest importance that entomologists be unanimous, 
for if each one chose to call an insect by a different name, and persist 
in so calling it, endless confusion must arise.” At present, the nomen¬ 
clature of Staudinger commands a greater amount of support than any 
other, and English workers can best bring themselves into line with 
their brethren by adopting the English version of that nomenclature 
provided for them by South. But the time has, I think, come when a 
standard trivial nomenclature should be agreed upon, which should 
undergo no further alteration, save such as may be rendered necessary 
by changing views as to what forms are or are not entitled to specific 
rank. It is, I think, quite hopeless to look for the establishment in the 
near future, if ever, of an unalterable standard of generic nomenclature, 
because generic nomenclature is so intimately connected with classifi¬ 
cation, and upon this subject our views will be likely to change with 
increasing knowledge, and moreover it is a subject upon which there 
will always be room for legitimate differences of opinion. The fixation 
of trivial nomenclature, however, is not attended with these difficulties, 
and we have; I think, abundant material for the purpose. The only 
difficulty that will arise of a serious nature will be to determine 
the basis upon which the standard should be founded. I have 
come to the conclusion that the “ law of priority ” cannot form that 
basis. The differing results arrived at by Staudinger and Kirby, 
both zealously seeking to carry out that law, the varying opinions held 
as to the validity of some of the earlier authorities, and the inrperfection 
of the descriptions of many even of the generally admitted authorities, 
Linnaeus not excepted, suggest strongly that a new point of departure 
must be taken, and that can, I believe, be found in Hiibner. He dealt 
with so many species, and his figures are on the whole so accurate, that 
a nomenclature based on his, will rest upon a sure foundation of identi¬ 
fication. The rival denouncers of Hufnagel and the Vienna Catalogue 
will have no further use for their weapons, and to a very large extent 
nomenclature will be brought back to what it was alike in Germany, 
France and this country before Staudinger descended and troubled the 
waters. With regard to species not dealt with by Hiibner, the “ law of 
priority ” may be so far adopted that the earliest post-Hiibnerian name 
may be accepted, and the materials will be sufficiently ample to prevent 
any great difficulty in arriving at a determination. The work of formu¬ 
lating such a standard nomenclature cannot rest on any single indi¬ 
vidual. It must be the result of agreement, perhaps compromise, 
between competent students in many parts of the world. This country 
possesses in Kirby a man who would be its very fitting representative, 
and there are many competent entomologists to whom he might turn 
