38 
for consultation in difficult cases. In Germany, Staudinger stands out 
as the man qualified for the task, and probably other countries could 
furnish fitting representatives. We have the material then, and the men 
to use it, but have we got the money too ? Aye, there’s the rub. One 
might reasonably look to the Government to furnish the, to it, relatively 
small amount needful, but I fear this is Utopian. Will the British 
Association, which once before took the lead in this matter, do it again ? 
I fear our leading Entomological Society can hardly be hopefully looked 
to, to take its fitting place in such an enterprise, but failing all these, will 
not our wealthy entomologists, who are ready to give high prices for 
rare insects, come to the rescue and do themselves lasting honour by 
furnishing the means for placing the trivial nomenclature of entomology 
upon a fixed and settled basis ? 
Mr. Tutt said that it was impossible to criticise at length Dr. 
Buckell’s paper, but two or three points occurred to him. Dr. Buckell 
had referred to the fact that Schifenniiller’s collection names had been 
verified by various authors, and that, therefore, they ought to stand, 
but what certainty had we that the insects had not been changed, as 
was often done, and as it was clear had also been done in the Linnsean 
collection. It was very desirable that no name should be admitted 
unless there was some description or figure with a name. He, therefore, 
considered Staudinger’s practice a good one. Besides, Dr. Buckell 
seemed to have lost sight of the fact that wherever there was the 
slightest clue to the Vienna Catalogue species, Staudinger had utilised 
them. With regard to Hufnagel the case was different; Bottemburg 
simply extended and explained descriptions already in existence, a 
method often adopted by modern authors themselves. The two cases 
were in no way, therefore, so parallel as Dr. Buckell suggested. With 
regard to taking Hiibner as a starting point, Mr. Tutt doubted whether 
it would not make confusion worse confounded, and instead of the 
occasional raking up of an odd name by students, a whole army of 
Hiibner’s names which are now used as synonyms would become 
primary names. He concluded it would be much better to form a list 
based on those of Staudinger and Kirby, dealing simply with those 
names about which there is distinct difference of opinion. 
A further discussion followed, after which a hearty vote of thanks 
was accorded to Dr. Buckell for his paper. 
Tuesday, April 4 th, 1893.—Exhibits:—Mr. Clark, a male Argynnis 
paphia with extra black markings, a xanthic specimen of A. euphrosyne 
and a gynandrous specimen of Lycceana oegon ; Mr. Battley, living 
larvae of Thera variata and Ellopia fasciaria ; Mr. Simes, eggs of 
Gonepteryx rhamni, deposited on the terminal shoots of the buckthorn; 
Mr. Kiches, cocoons of Galleria cerella, and larvae of Tabanus bovinus; 
Mr. Heasler, Baptolinus alternans ; Mr. Lewcock, Mezium affine, Niptus 
hololeucus, Gibbium scotias and Xestobium tessellatum. Mr. Lewcock 
then read a paper “ On certain Coleopterous Insects occurring in City 
warehouses.” Messrs. Newbery, Heasler, and others enquired the 
best way to breed Dermestes lardarius. Mr. Lewcock replied that the 
larvae of this species fed upon the skins and sinews of animals, and 
that a beef-bone with dried fragments of meat attached, was as suitable 
as anything else to breed them upon. The proceedings terminated 
with a vote of thanks to Mr. Lewcock. 
