1915] Technical Terms in Entomology 77 
(6). It should be permissible to supercede older terms with 
new ones, if there is no apparent unanimity of opinion among 
entomologists as to the application of terms concerning which 
the author himself was in doubt, or if it is impossible to deter- 
mine to what structures he intended that his terms should 
refer. In such cases it is far less confusing to apply entirely 
new terms, than to risk complicating further, an already suffi- 
ciently disconcerting state of confusion. 
(7). It should be permissible to make slight changes in 
older terms, to bring them into harmony with modern usage. 
For example, the designation “‘sternopleura’’ might be modified 
to “‘sternopleurite,’’ since the designation ‘‘pleura’’ refers to 
both flanks, while the term “‘pleurite’’ refers to a pleural sub- 
division (as is the case with the so called “‘sternopleura.’’) 
(8). If the author of a term applied it to wholly different 
(i. e. non-homologous) structures in the same or different 
insects, it should be permissible to designate the particular 
structure to which the term should be restricted. 
(9). It is advisable to avoid using a designation composed 
of two or more terms, for such designations are usually too 
cumbersome to be of practical application (e. g. “processus 
pteralis ale primus,” etc.) and when possible, should be super- 
ceded by a single concise designation, which may be compound 
or not. 
(10). Hybrid terms (i. e. those compounded from different 
languages) while permissible, are undesirable, and the number 
of those already in existence should not be further increased. 
(11). Designations expressed in a modern language should 
have no standing (e. g. ‘‘antecoxal piece’) and should be super- 
ceded by terms of Latin or Greek origin, in accordance with 
general zoological nomenclature. 
(12). In attempting to fix the application of anatomical 
terminology, the usage employed in some one standard work, 
such as that of Audouin (Recherches Anatomiques sur le 
Thorax des Animaux Articules:—Ann. Sci. Naturelles, Tome 
1. Ser. 1) might be taken as a basis, just as the tenth edition of 
Linne’s “Systema Nature’’ is taken by the systematists as the 
basis for establishing entomological nomenclature. An ob- 
jection to this suggestion is that Audouin was not at all certain 
as to the application of some of his terms (for example, he 
applied the term parapteron to wholly different sclerites in 
