486 A CENTURY OF PROGRESS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES 



descriptions, illustrations, and keys, together with preserved specimens. The 

 century 1853-1953 produced a quantity of each of these in entomology — more, 

 in fact, than in other branches of natural science. Much of this is something 

 to be proud of, but as we examine the accumulations closely, we find that a 

 large part of this past effort constitutes a burden to future progress. The at- 

 tempt to discover exactly what a given author was trying to name often takes 

 time that the skilled worker could otherwise use for advances in our real knowl- 

 edge. Theoretically, at least, the solution of such problems of nomenclature is 

 simple. All one has to do is to examine each holotype specimen and interpret 

 correctly the name it represents. In practice, however, this is very difficult, if 

 not impossible, especially for names proposed before the holotype concept was 

 established. Ironically, the more puzzling and inadequate the author's pub- 

 lished work, the more important are his preserved specimens. 



We all look to the museum to preserve the collections that form the basis of 

 all nomenclature. Here, however, we find a poorly supported activity, for it is 

 hard to justify the need for support in the eyes of those who have never them- 

 selves tried to solve the problems for which the museum alone provides the clues. 

 Also, the scattered distribution of types among institutions and private collec- 

 tions sets up obstacles. All too often type specimens are considered in relation 

 to the prestige of the collections possessing them rather than in relation to their 

 service to science. Let us hope that some day types will be concentrated in 

 fewer places. 



The abundance of insect species and their tremendous biological diversity, 

 evolved over a great span of geological time, should provide ideal materials for 

 developing broad biological principles. This very abundance, however, is the 

 root of our difficulties in nomenclature. The common mistake of many entomolo- 

 gists is the distribution of their efforts over too broad a taxonomic field, with 

 the result that their classifications are often based on very superficial knowl- 

 edge. A modern student has first to extricate himself from the maze of faulty 

 nomenclature before he can see the objects of his specialty as living creatures. 

 All too often he becomes involved with — and even absorbed in — the puzzles of 

 the literature, priority, and so on. As a matter of fact, pure entomology is unique 

 among the biological sciences in being dominantly systematic, a fact which indi- 

 cates the appropriateness of including in this volume a paper in this field. 



In this discussion I do not wish to imply that all papers that consist merely 

 of descriptions, keys, and illustrations are to be regarded as works inferior to 

 those in other branches of science. Every stage or conclusion in such standard 

 taxonomic papers may reflect — indeed should reflect — judgments that draw upon 

 the broadest type of experience of a research biologist. No science should be 

 wholly condemned because it is poorly practiced by some. 



The establishment of a sound classification, however, is only one aspect of 

 our research in entomology. It should not become a specialist's all-absorbing 

 purpose, else the very classification he seeks to establish may prove faulty. The 

 modern approach to a field of study is necessarily through specialization, which 

 makes advanced investigation possible. 



Unfortunately the nature of insects, their abundance, beauty, convenient size, 

 ease of preservation, and the way in which specimens can be lined up in neat 

 attractive rows have long caused them to be "collectors' items." Many of the 



