276 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



CONCERNING PROTESTS AND OTHER THINGS. 



BY JOHN B. SMITH, SC. D., RUTGERS COLLEGE, NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. 



There never yet was anything new or revolutionary advanced or 

 suggested that was not met with a " protest " from some quarter. When 

 machinery was introduced the hand-workers protested ; when railroads 

 supplanted s.tage coaches the coachmen protested ; and so on. So we 

 never had a new list in any order of insects, where changes in nomen- 

 clature were made, which was not denounced by someone who found 

 himself or herself compelled thereby to take new views or learn new 

 names. 



Of course, protests have their uses, and are always interesting ; so, 

 that by Mr. Heath, in the September number of the Canadian 

 Entomologist, was carefully read by me. Of course, it should really 

 be answered by Dr. George D. Hulst ; but he is, unfortunately, dead, and 

 as he was a very good friend of mine, I will do the best I can in his 

 behalf as well as my own, for I must plead guilty to being an American, 

 and am uneasily suspicious that, since I happen to know about Tepliro- 

 clystis, I must be included among the pseudo-savants. 



Let me say first of all that Mr. Heath has been for some time a very 

 good correspondent of mine, that I have found him always open-handed 

 and open-minded, ready to do all in his power to further entomological 

 science, anxious to aid, and willing to be aided ; therefore, whatever I 

 may say here is not meant as a reflection upon him — only an appeal to 

 his natural love of justice, and a plea that he do not scold too hastily. 



A protest always carries weight in proportion to the authority or 

 knowledge of him that makes it, or the force of fact or argument with 

 which it is backed up. Now, what does Mr. Heath really protest 

 against? Specifically, only the use of Tepliroclystis is mentioned, but 

 inferentially other " new " and unfamiliar names are included in the ban. 

 Tepliroclystis is not so well known perhaps as Eupit/iecia, though it may 

 rival "pugs" in familiarity; but would it not have been fair for Mr. 

 Heath to show, first, that it is really a new name, and second, that there 

 was no sound reason for the change other than that it did not mean 

 " pugs." Before making his protest and scolding " American pseudo- 

 savants " he should have made sure of his ground, and become genuinely 

 " savant " himself. Had he done so he would have found that Tepliro- 

 clystis is a Hubnerian term far antedating Eupitliecia, Curtis, and that, 

 following the law of priority, Hubner's name simply had to be used. If 



