1922] Met calf: Proceedings of Toronto Meeting 111 



2. That accounts of Secretary-Treasurer of the Entomological Society from 

 December 21, 1920, to December 24, 1921, have been audited and found correct, 

 with the exception of errors in computations to the amount of $1.50 in favor of the 

 Society. 



3. The report of the Treasurer of the Thomas Say Foundation has been 

 received and is recommended to be placed on file. 



4. Your Committee, in the interests of the officers of the Society and for the 

 information of future Auditing Committees recommends that the Reports of the 

 Auditing Committee from year to year be made a part of the permanent records 

 of the Society. 



Respectfully submitted, 



S. J. Hunter, 

 Norman Criddle. 



On motion, this report was accepted. 



The Committee on Nomenclature presented no formal report but 

 the following statement from one of its members was read by the 

 President : 



THE PUBLICATION OF INADMISSIBLE SPECIFIC NAMES. 



It has been customary to allow very great latitude in the matter of specific 

 names, but obviously there must be some limits beyond which names proposed 

 are to be rejected as not in conformity with the rules. We would call attention 

 to one objectionable practise, which we think should not be permitted. In 1906 

 Kohl published an excellent work on the Hymenoptera of Sokotra in which he 

 published two species as Eucera W. F. Kirhyi and Megachile W. F. Kirbyi. During 

 the present year, Strand has published a species Andrena W. A. Schulzi from 

 Crete. Frieso, in citing Kohl's Megachile, wrote it M. Kirhyi. These names 

 may be considered to present a certain analogy with those of Coccinella 22-punctata 

 L., C. 18-gidtala L. etc., but these latter can be latinized, and are so treated in 

 Leng's catalogue. An attempt to latinize in full the above-cited names of Kohl 

 and Strand would produce appellations which we should hesitate to print. No 

 doubt Frieso was correct in writing M. Kirbyi, simply. The question arises, how- 

 ever, as to the proper authority of the name. If M. W. F. Kirbyi is to be rejected 

 as contrary to the rules, it has no better standing than a polynomial and in that 

 case dates, from the standpoint of nomenclature, from Frieso's publication, and 

 he stands as the author. 



In this country, in 1894. Dyar published a description of a sawfly as Nematus 

 hudsonii magnus, not intending to indicate a subspecies. Marlatt, in 1896, called 

 the species Pteronus hudsonii Dyar. Dyar's name, as it stood, was clearly a poly- 

 nomial. We venture to suggest that the above criticised names should be rejected 

 as contrary to the rules and rejected in toto. 



We would also call attention to the apparently increasing frequency of badly 

 constructed names, which cannot be rejected, but remain to offend subsequent 

 generations of those who have any appreciation of latin or greek usage, or even of 

 elegance in language. Would it serve a useful purpose to compile annually and 

 present at the meeting of the Society a list of the worst of these, as a warning for 

 the future? 



(Signed) T. D. A. Cockerell. 



