Vol. xxiii] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 2/3 



ture, and relative exactness might be attained in a shorter time, but 

 I have suggested this longer period because the limited literature of 

 these obscurer groups may be the work of a very few individuals, and 

 others should have a chance to pass on the names. If there is any hope 

 of digging up all the names in the next twenty-five or fifty years, I 

 am in favor of strict priority, but if this unearthing is to go on indefin- 

 itely I am in favor of making exceptions to the strict application of 

 the law. As a matter of fact I don't believe these changes in nomen- 

 clature bother anybody much but those making them. The long-suffer- 

 ing morphologist, who, we are given to understand, is at a loss to 

 name the one species he is working on. can usually settle his trouble 

 by writing one letter. E. B. WILLIAMSON. 



At one time I was greatly in favor of the retention of certain 

 generic names which were of primary importance in economic ento- 

 mology, that is to say, such names as had been adopted by non-ento- 

 mologists as common names of insects. However, since the move- 

 ment along this line has reached the point where it seems to be merely 

 a movement for the preservation of all names now in common (sys- 

 tematic) use, I have changed my mind, and am strictly for the law 

 of priority. In cases such as I have mentioned the economic entomolo- 

 gists could well use the preoccupied name in their literature and it 

 would make no difference at all to the systematist, as he would know 

 the synonymy and could record the records in the proper place. This 

 would allow the use of such names as Stegomyia in economic and 

 popular literature and still allow the systematist to use the correct 

 name. J. C. CRAWFORD. 



The above expresses my sentiments so well that I wish to subscribe. 

 H. L. VIERECK. 



As ONE WHO has given a great deal of attention to this matter, I 

 wish to say that there is no rule which is not open at times to exceptions, 

 and that in the interest of a stable nomenclature there should be power 

 vested in the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature created by the 

 action of past Zoological Congresses and in the Commission on Nomen- 

 clature of the International Entomological Congress, by a unanimous 

 vote, in a certain limited number of cases, to adopt a name which has 

 been current, say for a century, as the generic designation of a well- 

 known form, even though antiquarian research may show that some 

 obscure writer in some obscure journal may have applied to that form 

 another name. The number of such cases is in my judgment extreme- 

 ly limited. There are, however, a few of this sort. I am thoroughly 

 in sympathy with the thought of those who clamor for a fixed and stable 

 nomenclature. I think, however, that the difficulties which they foresee 

 as likely to arise by the enforcement of the law of strict priority are 



