278 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 



fifth sternite with a broad shallow posterior emargination, a number of long 

 bristles on each side at base of emargination, the lateral projections bare. Fore 

 tibia without median bristle; mid femur gradually thickened to beyond middle, 

 then rather abruptly attenuated to apex, a group of strong bristles at apex of 

 swollen part on antero- ventral surface, and two or three bristles near base on 

 postero- ventral surface; mid tibia slightly distorted, with about a dozen strong 

 bristles on basal half of posterior surface, a small tubercle one- third from apex 

 on same surface, and dense, short bristles on ventral surface from base to and 

 covering the tubercle; hind femur slightly curved, slender basally, with a num- 

 ber of long bristles on apical half of antero- ventral surface; hind tibia very 

 slightly curved, antero- ventral surface with about 9 short bristles, antero-dorsal 

 surface with five or six short bristles, the posterior surface with about eleven 

 long bristles on apical three- fifths. Third and fourth veins much divergent 

 apically. Lower calyptra about twice as large as upper. 



Length 9 mm. 



Type. — Rigolet, Labrador, July 18, 1906. 



This species has the hind tibia armed almost as in pectinata Johannsen, 

 but the peculiar mid tibia separates the species from it and all other species 

 known to me from this country or Europe. 



This specimen was sent to me by Mr. C. W. Johnson, and pending its 

 final disposition the type is in the collection of Illinois Natural History Survey. 



A PLEA FOR MORE ACCURATE TAXONOMY IN MORPHOLOGICAL 



AND OTHER STUDIES. 



BY MORGAN HEBARD, CHESTNUT HILL, PA. 



It has been noted by the author that morphologists and students interested 

 in specialized studies of certain species are often inclined to give imperfectly 

 or inaccurately the necessary taxonomy for the material treated. 



This is understood only when we realize that the subject treated is of 

 great interest in such papers, the proper name for the material studied often of 

 little or no interest to the morphologist. 



That the correct name is of very great importance it would seem must be 

 admitted by all, when it is pointed out that from different species, though some- 

 times apparently very closely related, different results are often obtained, even 

 from morphological studies. 



It is true that the systematic work of the past has often left much to be 

 desired, and many changes have been necessitated thereby. That, however, 

 should not warrant slurring systematics any more than that equally unsatis- 

 factory past work of morphologists and reversal of conclusions should cause 

 interest in morphology to wane. The advance of all science is built in part 

 upon the correction of past errors. 



Another excuse for lack of proper taxonomic assignment is that it is often 

 difficult to secure the required names from a systematist. This is indeed some- 

 times true, but, in the great majority of cases, one fiftieth the time and effort 

 expended in preparing the material in question for study, would have secured 

 the necessary determinations. 



x\s a concrete instance, we would note Mr. E. Melville Du Porte's recent 



article, "The Propleura and th e Pronotal Sulci of the Orthoptera."(0 



(1) Can. Ent., LI, pp. 147 to 153 (1919). 



December, 1919 



