248 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



least, grain is bought and sold by sample. Let it not be understood that 

 we refer to this paper, its arguments, or its conclusions, as in any respect 

 binding upon the opinions or expressions of Mr. Scudder. Upon the 

 question of the value of the criteria referred to, there was room for great 

 difference of opinion, and perhaps the points made might have been con- 

 clusively answered, even though no answer has been offered in the five 

 years that have since glided into the past. 



But the insuperable objection was yet to come, one which appears to 

 be conclusively and finally fatal to the farther recognition of Mr. Scudder's 



new genera. 



This objection was that the criteria on which the new genera had been 

 constructed, the diff"erences described in the ratios of tibite, the venation 

 of wings, etc., when tested by careful measurement did not exist, as the 

 constant and distinguishing differences between the genera which they had 

 been said to designate. These measurements were made with great care 

 and in large numbers by Mr. Theodore. L. Mead, and were described by 

 him in the columns of this magazine (Can. Ent. vii., 232-238). They 

 showed that on the points specified the range of variation in well identified 

 and indubitable specimens of the same species, was greater than, and 

 included all, the variation that had been given as differentiating the 

 genera. The question was no longer one of argument or of opinion, but 

 of fact. We had argued that the differences, if existing, are not generic ; 

 Mr. Mead demonstrated that they did not exist, as constant in genera, but 

 as found in individuals, or in species of the same genus. Facts, however 

 stupid and senseless they may seem to him whose theories they oppose, 

 are yet stubborn. No man who claims to recognize scientific truth can 

 gainsay or deny them. 



We claim, then, that Mr. Scudder's persistent use of his nomenclature 

 in the face of these demonstrations is unscientific. Removed from a 

 scientific basis, the system which subdivides genera without stint, which 

 transfers specific names from genus to genus, which disturbs and inverts 

 the familiar sequences of tribes, genera and species, becomes utterly and 

 inextricably confusing. We are thankful that the well known, and well 

 worn, cuts from Harris are again in service to show us bewildered mortals 

 what familiar forms are signified by the unrecognized cognomens. We 

 are also grateful for a catalogue in the appendix, where, as in a court 

 calendar, we may learn what was the maiden name of the lady who has 

 acquired a new title by wedlock or otherwise. 



