THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 129 



THE FORMATION OF GENERIC NAMES. 



An article in the April number of the Canadian Entomologist leads 

 me to offer a few remarks on this subject. The custom of forming new 

 generic names by attaching a prefix or suffix to the existing name of 

 a related genus has grown to serious proportions in recent years. There 

 are several reasons why it should be discountenanced. For one thing, 

 it almost invariably makes the name too long to look or sound well. This 

 is no trifling disadvantage, although some entomologists seem not to 

 appreciate the fact. 



A second objection is that these names are usually lacking in euphony, 

 as a result of the grafting process, having a tendency to break in two 

 at the point of junction when they are spoken. 



A third is that the relation indicated by the name may not really 

 exist when the group conies to be more fully studied, or when different 

 characters are made the basis of classification ; or, an entomologist may 

 simply make a mistake in assuming a relationship, which cannot be 

 corrected after the generic name is once published. For instance, 

 Eugnoriste is as far removed in relationship from Gnoriste as it could be 

 and remain in the same family. 



Still another objection lies in the danger that the name used as a 

 foundation may turn out in the course of time, by the application of we 

 know not what rules of nomenclature, to be invalid, or to apply to some 

 other group, thus leaving the later name either meaningless or misleading. 

 In Mr. Ashmead's article, which called forth my observations, this is a 

 glaring objection to his procedure, as he states in the article that the genus 

 Pompilus is preoccupied. Hence, his new names will in future suggest a 

 relationship to the Mollusca or Pisces, rather than the Hymenoptera ! 



Such combinations as I object to would be all but impossible in the 

 present generation, as they have been in the past, had we but the same 

 aesthetic perception of euphony, and the same classical training, as the 

 fathers of entomology. I might add to this, had we the same sense of 

 responsibility when we establish a new genus. 



I am aware that occasional instances on the best authority can be 

 found that are open to one or another of my objections. I am also aware 

 that I once made a genus that I called Gnamptopsilopus, which is open 

 to all my objections but the third ; but I have reformed since then. 



J. M. Aldrich, Moscow, Idaho. 



