76 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. VIII, 
of terminology has arisen, and it is extremely unfortunate 
that a few necessary exceptions prevent the rigid enforcement 
of this rule. For example, the designation ‘‘thorax’’ was prob- 
ably introduced by Linne (Fundamenta Entomologiz#:—Ameen. 
Acad., Tome 7, p. 143) who applied it to the pronotum of 
Coleoptera, Hemiptera, etc., and designated the true thorax 
as the “‘truncus.’”’ It would be wholly impracticable, at present, 
however, to attempt to restrict the term “‘thorax’’ to the pro- 
notum, and to substitute ‘‘truncus’”’ for the accepted and well 
established use of the term thorax. 
(3). If terms have been proposed, without clearly indicat- 
ing to what structures they should be applied, such terms 
should be regarded as ‘‘nomina nuda,”’ and the first definite 
application of these terms to insectan structures, should be 
considered as the original one. For example, the terms pre- 
sternum, sternum (in the restricted sense), sternellum and 
poststernum, were originally proposed by MacLeay (Zool. 
Journ. London, Vol. 5, No. 18, 1830) for four hypothetical 
sternal subdivisions which he neither figured nor described, 
but merely stated that since they were to be found in Sguzlla 
and Julus (neither of which are insects), they might occur in 
other ‘‘insects.’’ The first application of these terms to insects, 
was by M’Murtrie (The Animal Kingdom, New York, 1831— 
a translation of Cuvier’s work) who applied the terms pre- 
sternum, sternum and poststernum to the prosternum, meso- 
sternum and metasternum. (The term sternum, however, had 
been previously used as a general term applied to the sternal 
region of all segments.) 
(4). A term cannot be used at the same time in a broad and 
in a restricted sense (i. e. the same term cannot be applied to 
both the whole, and to one of its parts) without creating con- 
fusion. For example, the use of the term sternum in the 
broad sense, to indicate the entire sternal portion of a segment, 
and in the restricted sense to indicate one of the several stern- 
ites, or sternal subdivisions, creates unnecessary confusion, and 
only the original use of the term should be retained. 
(5). Although the law of priority cannot be strictly en- 
forced in anatomical terminology, it is evidently undesirable to 
apply any more new terms to structures already supplied with 
suitable designations, unless it can be demonstrated that the 
older terms are inappropriate, or are incorrectly applied. 
