57 



must often bo at a loss as to what jjonorio oi- spocifie namo to nso in 

 his writings to make siii-c tliat his species will be (MTtainly rccofj^nized 

 by other entouiolojjists. 



I ventui'e to say that not one-half of the (list int^nished ciitomohtirists 

 u^athered here would be able to ^ive o(f-haii<l the " correct " generic 

 and specific combination for a coni)le of do/.en coiiniion insects, to 

 include such fi-equently discussed species as eoiUiiiir moth, oyster-shell 

 scale, plum curculio, fall webworm, etc. 



Even with access to a considerable body of literature In^ would ha\e 

 jijreat dillicnlty in some cases to decide which was the latest oi- which 

 was backed by the highest authority. 



The name Carpocapsa ponioneUa may very likely persist for some 

 time in economic literature, though our systematic friends now place 

 it in C'ydia. The oyster-sludl scale I learned under the name of ^l.sy;/- 

 (llofii.s coiicliifornil.s, a little later I knew it na Mytilasjji.s jxwiicorficiSf 

 then as Mi/fiJdspis poinoruin, then as Miji'daspis uJmi, and now I 

 must again revise the name and call it Lepidosaphes uhni — all this 

 within my short experience in econonuc work. I am not yet the old- 

 est relic in the field. This species, b}' the way, has been treated 

 under G diff'erent generic names, 12 different specific names, and in 

 25 difTei'ent combinations. Aspidiofius hed^n'iv, which for assui-ance 

 we may mention as the oleander scale, is about as bad, for with 3 

 generic names and 30 different specific names, it has liad 38 differ- 

 ent cond)inations. 



To the beginner this confusion is especially per[)le.\ing, often dis- 

 heartening, and I believe in many cases is responsible for promising 

 students going into other lines of science where the complexities of 

 nonu'nclatui-e are less trying. 



Now, I must not be interpreted as inveighing against the effort to 

 reach a basis of nomenclature in technical entomology that will give 

 stability and i)recision. As a systematist I fully realize the impor- 

 tance as well as the difficulty of securing stability, and I am only 

 objecting to the insistence on carrying the confiict, with its necessary 

 upheavals and shiftings, over into the realm of economic entomology. 

 This branch, from its very nature, demands that its results, in order 

 to be of service to tln^ people, for which they are s<iught, shall be pre- 

 sented in such form that the many may uuderstaiid. 



I am ])erfectly awan- that there are hosts of instuMs whose common 

 or vernacular nam«'s are so indefinite, so variable, or for some i-ea.son 

 so unacceptable that the only basis of precision lies in tlie acceptance 

 of a t<'clinical name which, e\-eu if cliaiigealtle, is at least 1 raceal>le in 

 successive publical ions. 



On the other hand, we do ha\i' a number of <'ommon names which 

 are strictly dist inctive f(»r certain widespread and familiar insects, 

 names that have been much nioi-e ])ei'sisleiil aiwl unchangeable th.-in 

 the technical names apjilied to the sami- spe<'ies, and the suggestion I 



