234 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



ble nomenclature. Thus orientalis is the type of the genus 

 Blatta. 



Mr. D. W. Coquillett has recently called my attention to the 

 fact that the dipterous genus Phyllodrotnia of Zetterstedt was 

 described in 1837,* and not, as recorded by Agassiz and Scudder, 

 in 1842. The orthopterous genus Phyllodroinia, being thus pre 

 occupied in the Diptera, must necessarily fall. Being a valid 

 genus, of which Blaita germanica Linnaeus is the type and hav 

 ing no synonyms, a new name is unavoidable. The generic name 

 Blattella is here proposed for it. 



Dr. Gill said that he upheld the conclusions Mr. Caudell had 

 drawn in his paper. 



Dr. Howard said that in his opinion there is a distinct ethical 

 question involved in the proposal of new generic names to take 

 the place of those preoccupied. While it is true that any one 

 who makes the discovery of preoccupation has a right to propose 

 a new name, and probably a moral right, he considers such action 

 discourteous to the author if the author be still living and engaged 

 in active work, and also discourteous to specialists in the group 

 involved if the person making the change is not himself a spe 

 cialist in the same group. As an example., he would not himself 

 think of proposing a new name in the Lepidoptera unless he had 

 previously notified the author of the name of the fact of preoccu 

 pation, and had indicated to him the desirability that he should 

 himself propose a new name. Failing that, he would not pro 

 pose a new name unless he had notified some other well-known 

 worker in Lepidoptera of the preoccupation and had suggested 

 that he propose a new name. In other words, in his opinion it 

 is bad form for a man who is not a specialist in a group to pro 

 pose a generic name in that group. 



Mr. Ashmead agreed with Dr. Howard's views and spoke 

 further in criticism of the extensive proposing of new specific 

 names, as in Dalla Torre's Catalogue, in consequence of 

 homonymy within the genus. He thought the uniting of so 

 many genera not justified and that the new names would have to 

 be rejected. 



Dr. Dyar thought that personal considerations should not 



* Isis, p. 31. 



