ROSS: SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY 493 



ducting parallel studies in other insect groups likewise becomes increasingly 

 important. 



It is to be hoped that those individuals who devote themselves to such long- 

 term, if not lifetime, specialization with no geographic boundaries or limitations 

 on research will have come to this through a period of general entomological 

 study. Often this general training affords a broad knowledge of the insects of 

 some particular region, which can be drawn upon to aid beginners. The tempta- 

 tion to contribute isolated systematic studies of groups outside one's specialty 

 should be avoided. 



It should go without saying that one of the first objectives of a specialist is 

 to examine thoroughly the creatures he studies. Strangely, many fail to do this. 

 They seem rather to be satisfied with the reshuffling of old and new species on 

 the basis of characters in vogue in the eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. An 

 anatomical exploration should establish the homologies and terminology of parts, 

 but it should also bring to light new, basic characters for determining relation- 

 ships. Representative species of the group, especially type species of genera, 

 should be chosen for this purpose. The generic classification should be well along 

 before a worker becomes involved in problems of subspeciation. Once this com- 

 parative anatomical basis for classification is established, one can usually find 

 superficial, easy-to-see features to use for key purposes. 



While the systematic "truths" are being explored we should look for im- 

 proved ways of telling others what we have seen. Fine line-drawings of critical 

 anatomical parts are ideal for this purpose. Since these are the products of ef- 

 fort rather than talent, there is little excuse for their neglect. At least the pencil 

 outlines should be made by the scientist himself, because the act of making draw- 

 ings impels one to examine closely the things he studies. Anyone who feels that 

 he cannot express himself in line-drawing should avoid systematic studies, since 

 this is the best medium of communication in the field. 



In publication, small isolated expositions of limited scope should be avoided 

 unless the group has already been recently revised. Anyone who feels qualified 

 to describe a new species should be able to present a revision of the genus in- 

 volved, if it is needed. 



The specialist, as he solves past nomenclature problems, should study his sub- 

 jects in the field, and field trips for this purpose should be made as necessary. 

 It has been my observation that a specialist can often accumulate more data 

 during one short trip to an area than would have been possible in hundreds of 

 years of general collecting by nonspecialists. 



With a library of reprints and microfilm built up around a specialty a worker 

 can become almost independent of large libraries and sets of periodicals. In a 

 few years his specialized collection, except for types, may well become the best 

 in existence. His time should not be taken up with the collecting and preser- 

 vation of specimens in which he has no personal research interest. His l^ooks 

 and specimens may later prove a most valuable legacy to his successors in the 



research field. 



One of the greatest contributions toward the stabilizing of insect nomencla- 

 ture, aside from the development of the international rules for zoological nomen- 

 clature, was the recognition of the importance of basing a name on a holotype 

 specimen. There is still, however, considerable need for a greater understanding 



