Annelida: J. P. Moore, A. L. Treadwell. 



Arthropoda: H. E. Ewing, R. E. Snodgrass. 



Crustacea: E. A. Birge, Norma C. Furtos, H. A. Pilsbry, Mary J. Ratlibun, Waldo 



Schmitt, J. P. Visscher, C. B. Wilson. 

 Pycnogonidia : L. J. Coir. 

 Arachnida : H. E. Ezving. 



Insecta: C. L. Kennedy, Z. P. Mclcalf. J. G. Needham. H. G. Barber, H. E. Ewing. 

 Mollusca: P. Bartsch, H. Rehdcr. 

 Chordata : C. W. Gilmorc, W. K. Gregory. 

 Tunicata : W. E. Rittcr, W. G. Van Name. 

 Pisces : W. K. Gregory, C. L. Hubbs, W. G. Myers. 

 Amphibia : Helen T. Gaige, G. K. Noble. 

 Reptilia: Helen T. Gaige, G. K. Noble. 

 Aves : A. Wetmore. 

 Mammalia: L. R. Dice, C. W. Gilmore, Remington Kellogg. 



Those whose names appear in italics furnished essentially the terms that appear in the 

 following pages. While the writer gladly acknowledges the obligation to those persons 

 and appreciates greatly the work they did, they are not to be held responsible for the 

 pubhshed list. The differences of opinion among zoologists in the United States were 

 found to be so great that there was little hope of agreement and the editor finally did 

 what seemed to him best. 



Perhaps forty per cent of those consulted strongly urged the use of uniform endings 

 for the larger groups of animals. The difficulty encountered in this connection was that 

 protozoologists, helminthologists, conchologists, ornithologists, etc. had already moved 

 more or less in the direction of uniformity and each group of specialists had a tendency 

 to adopt a dififierent system. After long consideration the editor has used the system in 

 vogue among protozoologists and students of some other groups, as it seemed to be at 

 present more generally in use than any other. The endings are as follows : Phylum and 

 Subphylum, — a; Class, ~ea; Subclass, — ia ; Order, — ida ; Suborder, — ina. In presenting 

 this report to Section F it is not supposed that uniform endings shall be adopted as official, 

 or even recommended. The zoological world had perhaps best be left to make its own 

 choice. In the list the names in the first column represent what the editor after con- 

 sultation believes to be best current usage ; those in the second column are what a few 

 zoologists would like to .see used, but perhaps in presenting these the editor is "a hundred 

 years ahead of his time." In any attempt to attain uniformity dilficulties arise. For 

 example. Dr. Steiner points out that two names suggested as suborders under Nematoda 

 are objectionable because identical names already have good standing as genera in the 

 same group (Rliabditina Cobb 1922, Chromadorina Filipjev 1926). 



Another matter about which there is wide disagreement is whether there should be 

 few or many groups — the old controversy between "lumpers" and "splitters." Shall there 

 be ten or thirty phyla, or orders of insects? The position has been taken that it is more 

 truthful, and therefore more scientific, to present many groups; otherwise it is necessary 

 to compromise to the extent of grouping things together which have remote or insig- 

 nificant relationships. To the objection that students cannot be expected to master such 

 a long list of technical jargon there is only one answer. It is better to tell students part 

 of the truth frankly than to falsely affirm that they are learning a complete and simple 

 story. Biology is not always simple and clear. It therefore seems proi>er to say to a 

 student in an elementary course, "of the thirty-odd phyla of animals, or orders of insects, 

 only ten or a dozen which arc of particular biological significance to you will be studied," 

 rather than, "f<»r convenience and simplicity all animals, or all insects, are presented 

 under ten phyla, or orders, which may be easily remembered." Science is truth. 



[4] 



