84 Journal New York Entomological Society. t Vo1 - xxvu. 



[the ostiolar tubercle] on each pleura, extending [to] and slightly 

 curving over at base of elytra, indicate that the insect before him was 

 a Jalysus, unless indeed we divide that genus, as here done. 



The two short, sharp spines at tip of abdomen are merely the acute 

 angles of the broadly emarginate terminal segments. The scutellar 

 spine is characteristic of Jalysus, and the prominent but blunt spine 

 between bases of antennae marks the species under consideration, 

 whether we call it multispinus or perclavatus. 



There remains but one difficulty, and that the only real one in har- 

 monizing Ashmead's species with the genus Jalysus (as heretofore 

 understood) and identifying it with /. perclavatus Van D. This is 

 the alleged presence of a spine on each side of head just back of 

 antenna. In my opinion Ashmead described the antenna from a 

 single entire one, and the " spine " from the broken base of the other. 

 There is present on the type such a broken base which might be mis- 

 taken for a spine. 



A poor piece of work, admittedly, but when has this fault been 

 given weight in discussions of nomenclatorial matters? If it were, 

 hundreds of names now accepted would go by the board, and even 

 the foundation of all our nomenclature would be shattered, for judged 

 by present standards the definitions of Linnseus are very undiscrimi- 

 nating. Ashmead's chief fault in launching his multispinus was one 

 still too common, namely that of trying to stretch the definition of 

 an existing genus to cover the new form in hand, regardless of vio- 

 lence done. 



This case emphasizes an aspect of the description of new forms 

 that is seldom dwelt upon. That is, credit and honor for a discovery 

 are not the most important things connected with naming a new 

 group. On the contrary, it must be borne in mind that responsibility 

 for launching the new form or group and for adequately character- 

 izing it is great, and that this phase of the work cannot be slighted 

 without detriment to science and to the good standing of the de- 

 scriber. Thus under the workings of priority rulings, although im- 

 perfect and unworthy work seemingly is elevated, poetic justice is 

 done by making the authors of poor, insincere or pirated work 

 responsible for all of their discreditable brood. Every subsequent 

 author who works over their product sees its faults, and the fact that 

 an individual's name follows a long list of names of organisms by no 



