66 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



Nonsense Names. 



By GEORGE WHEELER, M.A., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 



In the Iuitomolo(/int's Mnnthhi Maijazine for February, is a paper by 

 Mr. Meyrick on the nomenclature adopted for certain Tortricina by 

 Mr. W. D. Kearfott, which must, I should imagine, be rather stagger- 

 ing to the rigid supporters of priority at all costs, and should open the 

 eyes of all but the most hardened among them to the utter hopelessness 

 of their position ; unless they are prepared to provide an asylum in 

 which systematic entomologists (and indeed systematic zoologists and 

 botanists) are destined sooner or later to be immured, in consequence 

 of the brain-fag which such nomenclature as Mr. Kearfott's (which 

 their principles would bind them to accept) must necessarily super- 

 induce. It is so rarely that I find myself in accord with the author of 

 the paper on systematic questions, that it is with special pleasure that 

 I offer humble thanks and congratulations on this occasion. His 

 personal acquaintance with the author of these amazing barbarisms 

 no doubt somewhat impedes his utterance, but I, w^ho am not so 

 hampered, do not hesitate to describe the list which he rejects as an 

 insult to the common sense of scientists in every branch of zoology or 

 botany, and an insult none the less to be resented (and rejected) 

 because it is doubtless due only to thoughtlessness and not to contempt. 



As some letters seem to be omitted as initials in forming such a series 

 of names as hana, dana, fana, . . . vana, nana, and such like, the 

 only possible method of remembering them seems to have been taken 

 away ; otherwise an opportunity might have been given to some 

 entomological wag to exercise his talents (!) on " nonsense alphabets," 

 in which each line should give a doggerel description of some 

 peculiarity of the creature referred to, such as : — 



" A is for ana with three bands of blue ; 

 B is for bana which only has two ; " etc. 



I make no apology for this levity, for from this point of view it 

 seems to me impossible to take the matter seriously. There are 

 however other questions connected with it, which seem to call for 

 graver comment, and here I feel the necessity of walking warily, since 

 I am criticizing a great Society and an admirable Periodical ; 

 for these names were published under the irgis of the American 

 Entomological Society in most instances, and in the rest under 

 that of the Canadian Entomolof/ist. It would be unfair to infer 

 that either the one or the other approves of such a system of nomen- 

 clature, but would it not be possible for the Council of the Society 

 and for the Editor of the Magazine alike, to avoid the appearance of 

 countenancing such monstrosities by refusing point-blank to give them 

 to the world ? Speaking as a responsible member of the Editorial 

 Staff of the Mnt. lieruxl, I would unhesitatingly insist on the rejection 

 of such a paper, and if through any inadvertence such a one were read 

 before the Entomological Society of London, I would, as Secretary, 

 decline to include it in the Proceedings — and take the consequences, 

 which however would, I am confident, be the almost unanimous 

 approval of the Society. 



But this appalling list having once been launched on the world, 

 the method of its rejection becomes a question of moment. I have 

 every personal sympathy with the courage of Mr. Meyrick in trying 



