94 



ninety-four new names as substitutes lor a long series of new- 

 species described by Kearfott in 1907, and published in the 

 Trans. American Ent. Soc, vol. 33 (1907), and in the Canadian 

 Entomologist for the same year ; he also included three names 

 of Busck's. The matter was discussed very fully at two meet- 

 ings of the Entomological Society of London, who appointed 

 a sub-committee to consider the whole question and to report, 

 and after the report the resolution I have moved was carried 

 practically unanimously. Without considering the propriety of 

 Meyrick's substitutions, it was strongly felt that Kearfott's 

 names were untenable, primarily for the reason that to the 

 ordinary person they are quite unmemorable. It would not be 

 possible for the ordinär}^ worker to memorise ninety plays on 

 the syllable " ana," without very serious effort and constant 

 reference to the originals ; in addition to this there are names such 

 as Enarmonia vana and wana ; Eucosma sandana, xandana, zan- 

 dana, vandana, wandana ; Phalonia foxana, voxana ; Eucosma 

 vomonana and womonana, and others somewhat similar. The 

 sound of Eîicosma sandana, spelt with an s, x, or z, is absolutely 

 indistinguishable in English and other languages, those beginning 

 with V and w are indistinguishable in some languages, and it was 

 felt some steps ought to be taken to prevent the recurrence of 

 such a list of names. Besides these, Kirkaldy published a series 

 of what many consider objectionable names, such as ochisme (oh 

 kiss me) isachisme (I say kiss me), florichisme (Florry kiss me) 

 dolichismc (Dolly kiss me), and many others similar to these — 

 I may say that there is ground for believing that the bracketed 

 explanations are the origins of all these appellations, and it was 

 considered that such names could only bring Entomological 

 science into disrepute, if they did not make it a laughing-stock 

 to the scientific world. The resolution I have moved does not 

 in any way conflict with those already passed at the first Con- 

 gress. It will be seen that there is no desire to oppose the Inter- 

 national Commission of Zoological Nomenclature, but rather 

 a desire to strengthen their hands and to prevent, if possible, 

 that Commission from departing from their own Code. I speak 

 as an upholder of the Code, but I want it improved. It consists 

 of rules and recommendations, the former of which are binding, 

 but the latter are not. I would like to eliminate many of the 



