WCP1717

[1]

To the Secretary of the Zoological Society

Having had occasion to use a "List of the Butterflies of Costa Rica" by Mess^rs Butler¹ and Druce,² in Part III of the "Proceedings" for 1874,³ I was much annoyed at finding that the arrangement of the Families and genera did not at all correspondent [sic] with that of the laborious ^and recent general Catalogue of Butterflies by Mr Kirby.⁴ Having to compare the two, I was obliged to consult Kirby’s Index for every genus in the "List", as they skipped backwards and forwards 50 and 100 pages at a time. Now, as the authors of the paper referred to have given us a bare list and nothing else, but have left us to get what information we require by a comparison, genus by genus with other lists; and, as the only general work available for the purpose is Kirby’s Catalogue, it seems to me wholly unjustifiable for the issues of a mere list to render it as inconvenient as possible by adopting ^{to adopt} a totally new arrangement of the genera is most inconvenient and unnecessary.

I would further ^therefore suggest, that, as [2] the Zoological Society only gives its valuable space to such lists on account of their utility to working zoologists, it should be made a rule that the authors must in all cases follow the arrangement of such some good general work, (monograph or catalogue ^{of the entire group treated of}) and that the name of such work should be given at the head of the list.

It is not, I apprehend, a question as to which of the two arrangements is scientifically the most correct, but a matter of pure convenience; and I think so glaring a case of inconvenient innovation should not be passed over without bringing it to the notice of the Society and of zoologists in general.

Alfred R. Wallace [signature]