25 
only a few miles apart, the specimens responded to tlieir environments, 
the Sandown forms being decidedly the darker. Dr. Sequeira, Cymato- 
pliora ridens, bred from New Forest larvae Coleoptera :—Mr. Heasler, 
Kaploenemus impressus, Scaphidema cenea, Bhinosimus viridipennis, Scyd- 
mcenus liorticollis and Eutliia scydmcenoides, all from Acton. Mr. Jarvis, 
Plinthus caliginosus, Homalota plana, Prognatha quadricorne and Platy- 
deras rujicollis, from Wandsworth and Darenth. 
Dr. Buckell then read the following paper :— 
SPECIFIC NOMENCLATIVE: PRESENT, PAST and FUTURE. 
I have been led to invite your attention to-night to the thorny 
question of nomenclature by a profound conviction that the existing 
confusion and uncertainty which characterise our use of names at present 
in this country are discreditable to us as scientific entomologists and 
inconvenient to us as collectors. This state of things, although existing 
before that time, has become much more pronounced since the appearance 
of the Entomologist Synomymic List. Against the changes in accustomed 
use made in that List protests both active and passive have been plenti¬ 
ful, in which respect, however, it has only shared the same fate as its 
predecessor. This society, in particular, dealt short shrift to the 
intruder, resolving on August 21, 1884, “ That many of the alterations 
are uncalled-for, and that a re-issue of the Doubleday List, with the 
addition of the new species discovered since the date of its publication, 
would have been far more acceptable to the great body of British en¬ 
tomologists.” I hope to-night to convince you that the question of nomen¬ 
clature must be settled by considerations of principle, and not merely of 
convenience. The subject is a large one, and I shall be fortunate if I do 
not weary you though I restrict myself to that part of it relating to 
specific, or, as I prefer to call it, trivial nomenclature. This restriction 
must be borne in mind when I come to deal with authorities. These 
may also be consulted in regard to arrangement, classification, and its 
dependent generic nomenclature, but I am concerned with them solely 
from the point of view of trivial nomenclature. 
If entomologists are to communicate with one another, it can only 
be upon the basis of a nomenclature common to all. The earliest 
nomenclature was a vernacular one. This country, Germany, France, 
and probably other countries, possessed such a nomenclature long before 
a scientific one came into being. Our own vernacular nomenclature is 
a very good one, but the necessity of intercommunication between 
workers speaking different languages requires the adoption of a 
common language for the purposes of scientific nomenclature, and by 
common consent and long-established usage Latin has been recognised 
as best fitted for the purpose. 
In endeavouring to solve the problem of nomenclature, it is impera¬ 
tive to bear in mind that the fauna of these sea-girt islands is a part, 
and only a part, of the fauna of the world; that the insects we meet 
with are not confined to this country, and that, if we would take our 
proper place in the commonwealth of entomological science, we must 
fall into line with our brethren in other countries who have a much 
more extensive fauna to deal with, and must adopt the same names 
as are used by them. The chief difficulty arises from the multiplicity 
of names which some species have received. This is due to several 
causes. In some cases the same insect has been described or figured 
