494 A CENTURY OF PROGRESS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES 



of the significance of the holotype. This is important, because such specimens, 

 however arbitrarily selected, stand as the least subjective "anchor points" for 

 all nomenclature. Unfortunately there are yet workers who confuse describing 

 the holotype with describing the species (a never ending task). This confusion 

 is also reflected in the designation of paratypes, which are often used as a means 

 of exhibiting the nature of the species (i.e., characters of the opposite sex or 

 castes; developmental stages; products, such as galls; and characters of other 

 populations, by the introduction of individuals from other localities in the para- 

 type series) rather than the nature of the holotype. As soon as this point is 

 understood, the format of species description and paratype designation of many 

 workers will need to be modified. 



Entomologists in particular should realize that there will have to be some, 

 perhaps arbitrary, point at which certain kinds of animal populations will cease 

 to be designated by names that enter into zoological nomenclature. The only 

 really definable unit in biology is the individual. If we continue the present 

 trend of naming each apparently distinct population of individuals, we will de- 

 velop a nomenclatural snarl that will defeat progress. 



As a certain stability of nomenclature is reached in a group, research em- 

 phasis should be changed from the defining and naming of micropopulations to 

 other forms of biological investigation. This shift of emphasis may indeed be 

 used as a means of stabilization; at least, such aspects should be investigated by 

 the systematist. I know of some insect groups in which detailed taxonomic work 

 continues but of which not a single life-history stud}^ has ever been made. Here, 

 of course, we encounter the age-old human equation — the type of mind to which 

 taxonomy is appealing is often not attracted to any other phase of study. I some- 

 times think, too, that the collecting and classifying instincts in man are more 

 basic and common than any other manifestations of his scientific curiosity. Cer- 

 tainly, because of the abundance and "convenient" nature of insects their study 

 has attracted many persons dominated by these instincts. 



Summary 



1. Systematic studies have dominated, and yet at times have delayed, the 

 development of biological research in entomology. 



2. There is a need for broader specialization in more limited taxonomic 

 units. This will tend to eliminate the pitfalls of research limited by geographic 

 scope or life-history stage. More entomologists should be biologists studying a 

 group of animals, not merely taxonomists studying the group. 



3. The study of the insect world is too vast and mostly of too little economic 

 importance, to be adequately carried on by specialists paid from public funds. 

 More financial support will have to come from private funds and from the con- 

 tributions of skilled amateur researchers. 



4. The results of first-line systematic studies should be made available to 

 the public in the form of popular works. These must be in sufficiently small re- 

 gional "dosages" not to overwhelm the prospective user or, indeed, the compiler. 



5. Aided and stimulated by such works, a larger corps of amateurs should 

 develop to support the institutions and periodicals featuring purely scientific 



