1915] Technical Terms in Entomology 19 
tomologists, in this and similar instances, has been to bring 
about a confusion ‘‘thrice confounded,” they are certainly to be 
congratulated upon the signal success which has crowned their 
efforts! 
Among the systematists, an awakening of the modern spirit 
of scientific exactness is apprent in the attempted standardiza- 
tion of entomological nomenclature, and it is to be hoped that 
the same spirit of scientific exactness may eventually impel 
them to adopt some standardization of entomological termin- 
ology as well. Since no rules or suggestions whatsoever (so 
far as I am aware) have been formulated for governing the 
application of entomological terminology, and since it is ap- 
parent that some one must take the initiative in this matter, 
I would venture to offer the following purely tentative sug- 
gestions, in the hope that other workers who have been con- 
fronted with the same disconcerting confusion in the application 
of anatomical terminology, may be moved to contribute to 
the discussion, or to offer better solutions of the difficulties 
than those here proposed. 
(1). Long established or general usage should be one of the 
most important factors in determining the application of a term. 
When, however, established usage is wholly at variance with 
logical consistency, it should always yield to the latter. For 
example, according to general and established usage, the term 
metatarsus is applied to the basal tarsal segment, no matter 
whether it be that of the metathorax, mesothorax, or prothorax. 
According to logical consistency*, however, the term meta- 
tarsus should always refer to the entire tarsus of the meta- 
thorax, and of the metathorax alone, since the prefix ‘‘meta”’ 
delimits all metathoracic structures: e. g. metanotum, meta- 
coxa, metafemur, etc. 
(2). The original usage of a term should always be retained. 
In other words, if the author of a term applied it to a well 
defined structure, this term should never be applied to any 
structures other than those homologous with the one to which 
this designation was originally applied. It is through the dis- 
regarding of this principle that much of the present confusion 
*The expression ‘‘logical consistency’’ is used advisedly, since it would be 
consistent to argue that the designation ‘‘pro-podeum’’ should refer to a pro- 
thoracic structure, but this blind carrying of consistency to the extreme, would 
hardly be logical. 
