1908] Some Problems in Nomenclature 103 



Edward Doe in 1575, though a few months later, reared still 

 another species from this same gall. He likewise concludes that 

 he has the true gall maker and describes it as Dasyneura gallicola 

 (John Doe 1492). It happens that both the Lasioptera and the 

 Dasyneura may produce this gall. Again we must ask the ques- 

 tion: Can the gall carry the name? It is evident in this case 

 that the systematic name, the one appearing in a catalogue list- 

 ing the species of this family, is based and must of necessity be 

 based on the characters presented by the adult. There are cases 

 where two species belonging to the same genus may be bred from 

 the same gall. Is there a Solomon present who can inform us 

 which species shall bear the name earlier bestowed upon the gall ? 

 The situation is further complicated by the fact that it is very 

 easy to rear Cecidomyiidae from some portion of a plant sup- 

 posedly uninfested, as for example, apparently normal flowers, 

 leaves or even stems. 



Case 3. 



1496. Cecidomyia abstrusa — Gall described and the larva 

 characterized by John Doe, so that it can possibly be referred 

 to a genus. 



1497. Lasioptera cincta — Collected at large and described by 

 William Doe. 



1499. Lasioptera abstrusa and L. splendens — Bred and des- 

 cribed by Edward Doe. 



Subsequent studies proved that both species may occur in 

 about equal numbers in the gall. There are no characters given 

 in the first description that can be relied upon to separate the 

 larvae of the two forms. Was the species described in 1496, 

 if so, what species? Furthermore, the adult described by Edward 

 Doe as Lasioptera abstrusa in 1499, proves to be the same as the 

 one William Doe collected and described in 1497. 



There is little question as to what disposition should be made 

 of case I. A close examination of case 2 shows that ultimately 

 the name must be carried by the adult. Would it not be in the 

 interest of stability of nomenclature to accept the bestowal of the 

 earlier names upon galls only in the spirit in which they were con- 

 ferred ; namely, as tentative pending the discovery and character- 

 ization of the imago? It is only a very little step farther to put 

 in the same category, galls accompanied by a very brief descrip- 

 tion of the larva as illustrated in Case 3 . We fully agree with the 



