142 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS [Mar., 'lO 



I wish also here to enter a protest against allowing a name given 

 to the immature form of an insect to replace a later one founded on 

 the adult. If we find an egg or larva new to us we should endeavor 

 to raise it to maturity and learn to what species it belongs. If we 

 have not the ambition or industry to do this we have no right to claim 

 the species. We cannot but admire the strong stand our author has 

 taken on the subject of priority and in the recognition of specific 

 names except as noted above this rule probably cannot be too rigidly 

 applied, but when we come to genera the personal element comes so 

 prominently to the front in the selection of geno-types that it proba- 

 bly is hopeless to look for unanimity. There will be many cases which 

 could well be submitted to an unbiased authoritative commission who 

 could undertake to decide each controverted case upon its merits. 



I do not feel competent to discuss the system of classification 

 adopted by Mr. Kirkaldy which differs radically from that of the 

 Lethierry and Severin Catalogue. It is founded on the Schodtean 

 system and is probably the most philosophical thus far proposed. I 

 would, however, like to suggest a few slight changes in the arrange- 

 ments of the families and in doing this I have restored certain names 

 which I think he has unwarrantably altered. Assuming his phylogeny 

 to be substantially correct, I would list the families as follows : 



1. Cydnidae (Thyreocoridae). 14. Nepidse. 



2. Pentatomidae (Cimicidae). 15. Anthocoridae. 



3. Urolabididae. 16. Cunicidae (Clinocoridae). 



4. Aradidae. 17. Polyctenidae. 



5. Coreidae. 18. Aepophilidae. 



6. Pyrrhocomke. 19. Capsidas (Miridae). 



7. Lygaeidae. (Myodochidae). 20. Dipsocoridas. 



8. Tingidae. 21. Saldidae (Acanthiidse). 



9. Nabidae. 22. Octeridae. 



10. Gerridse. 23. Naucoridse. 



11. Reduviidae. 24. Belostomidae. 



12. Phymatidce (Macrocephalidae). 25. Corixidae. 



13. Enicocephalidae. 26. Notonectidae. 



It seems to me that the representation of the relationship between 

 various groups of insects of the same category by a phylogenetic 

 tree, printed in two dimensions of space only, on the page of a book 

 is but litlte more satisfactory than the linear arrangement of a cata- 

 logue. A phylogenetic tree to be at all true to nature must be in three 

 dimensions, and in my opinion, many, if not most of its branches, must 

 anastamose at various points with the adjacent branches. This will 

 sound to some like ignoring the principles of evolutionary develop- 

 ment, but I do not see how we can escape from this view if we study 



