2j6 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [Oct., '05 



Madison, Wis., July 20, 1905. 



DEAR EDITOR : In the May number of the ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS 

 there appeared an article by H. L. Viereck, in which he called attention 

 to inadequate descriptions of new species, and the consequent trouble 

 and vexation to the " man handicapped by the lack of material." As I 

 may consider myself to belong to that great category (and it must be 

 remembered the great mass of collectors are similarly situated), I would 

 like to say something in regard to this matter, knowing that I voice the 

 sentiments of many. 



It seems to me that Mr. Y. does not strike at the root of the evil. The 

 numerous revisions, dichotomic keys, and other contributions along the 

 line of taxonomy are to the great mass of entomologists practically 

 worthless, or, what is worse, confusing. I do not intend to cast any 

 reflection upon the work which our systematists are doing for it must be 

 admitted their work is painstaking and thorough, and I can appreciate 

 the amount of energy spent on a description which takes up a page or a 

 page and a half in print. Thorough work is always worthy of admiration 

 and respect and a description to be scientific should be so detailed as to 

 leave no doubt whatever which species is meant. But this mass of 

 detail is confusing when the material is not at hand. Time and again I 

 have honestly tried to conceive a mental picture of the species as 

 described, but the mind simply refuses to grasp and hold the amount of 

 detailed information. And when we try to get an idea of different species 

 of a group we fail utterly. 



Truly, an attempt made by the average collector to determine his own 

 specimens from keys, tables and descriptions is a hopeless and discour- 

 aging task. 



I do not believe that the cause of all this lies in inadequate descriptions. 

 There seems to be a reluctancy to publish explanatory figures. It is not 

 necessary in all cases to figure the entire insect, but merely the distin- 

 guishing characteristics by which it differs from its nearest ally. Com- 

 parative length and thickness of antennae, differences in punctuation, 

 grouping of hairs, etc., can be more easily figured than described. 



Whether the fault lies with the author or with the publisher is hard to 

 say. A trained biologist is generally, or should be, a good draftsman, 

 and I think it would appeal to him strongly to draw those characteristics 

 which defy description. The trouble seems to be that figures increase 

 the cost of publication of an article to a considerable extent. Financial 

 considerations, however, should not stand in the way of the progress of 

 science, and it is better to publish fewer articles which are useful to the 

 great mass of entomologists than to publish many which, however 

 ingenious and painstaking, represent practically a waste of nervous 

 energy. The cost of publication may be increased four-fold, but the 

 value of the article to the "man handicapped by lack of material" (the 

 great majority) is enhanced out of proportion to the increased cost of 

 publication, C. B. HARDENBERG. 



