THE 



ra([tixal ®iitaw0l00ist. 



A MONTHLY BULLETIN, 



Published by the American Entomological Society, for the dissemination of valuable 

 Imowledge among Agriculturists and Horticulturists. 



Vol. II, No. 10. 



JULY, 18G7. 



Whole No. 22. 



Wxt f racticiil ^ittiimijlagtBt. 



;^?"Publisheil bv the American Entomological Society 

 at'their Hall, No. 518 South Thirteenth St., Philadelphia. 



^®~Edited by Bexj. D. Walsh, Rock Island, Illinois. 



^^^ TEII.MS — 60 cents a year, in advance. 



^^©'All subscriptions must date from the commence- 

 ment of the volume. 



^a?~ Copies of Volume I, neatly bound in cloth, will 

 be sent to any address, postage paid, for $1.25, or unbound 

 for 55 cents. 



^^^Subscriptions and all other business communica- 

 tions should be addressed to "E. T. Cresson, Secretary of 

 the Entomological Society, Post Office Box 2086, Phila- 

 delphia." Entomological communications to "Benj. D. 

 Walsh, Rock Island, Illinois." 



PHILADELPHIA, JULY, 1867. 



SCIENTIFIC NOMENCLATURE. 



A correspondent, Mrs. S. P. Monks, of New York, 

 asks the following very pertinent questions, and 

 another correspondent, Mr. W. V. Andrews, of 

 New York, has apparently been puzzled in the 

 same manner. I shall therefore reply to both in 

 the same article, and as briefly as possible. The sub- 

 ject, however, is a very extensive and difficult one, 

 and is moreover, with certain naturalists, a very 

 sore one. So that, in expressing my own opinions, I 

 shall probably, no matter how careful I may be, tread 

 upon somebody's entomological corns. Incredible 

 as it may seem to the general reader, there are 

 certain naturalists who cannot bear to have their 

 pet theories called in question, and fly into a passion 

 when any one ventures to difier from them ; and like 

 most angry men, instead of meeting argument by 

 argument, answer with nothing but a torrent of 

 misstated facts and violent abuse. 



Why does L. Trouvelot, in the American Naiuralist, call 

 a moth Telea Polyphemus, and Harris in the Injurious 

 Insects, call it Attacus Polyphemus ? The latter says that 

 the genus Attacus comprises Luna,Cecropia, Promcthea and 

 Polyphemus, while the former says Tropcea Luna, Plaiysa- 

 mia Cecropia, Callosaiyiia Promethea, and Tctea Polyphemus. 

 I thought Harris was excellent authority, and these dif- 

 ferent names bother me. 



Those four large and beautiful moths were all ar- 

 ranged under the genus AWicus, by Linnaeus and 

 Drury in the last century, Drury having been the 



first to describe Fromethca, and Linnaeus having 

 previously described the other three. Harris, writ- 

 ing for the general reader, and endeavoring evident- 

 ly to simplify his nomenclature as much as possible, 

 followed the old arrangement ; Dr. Morris has also 

 included all these insects under Attacus in his Sy- 

 nopsis ; and I have done the same thing myself in 

 the PttACTicAL Entomologist. But — and of 

 this, Harris was probably well aware — towards the 

 commencement of the present century Linnseus's 

 old genus Attacus was cut up by a German ento- 

 mologist, Hiibner, into several new genera; and 

 since then various other new genera have been dis- 

 membered from it by authors. In fact, there is 

 scarcely one of the old Linnaean genera in any de- 

 partment of Natural History, that has not been 

 treated in the same manner, the tendency of mo- 

 dern science being decidedly towards subdividing 

 and splitting up. Indeed, if things go on in their 

 present course for many more years, we shall soon 

 have as many genera as species. For although 

 many of the proposed new genera arc based upon 

 definite distinctive characters, and ought, therefore, 

 to be accepted, if necessary, yet a considerable per- 

 centage of them are founded upon loose, indefinite, 

 shadowy characters, such as, in my opinion, are on- 

 ly of specific value. For example, the genus Cal- 

 losamia, in the group of moths referred to above, 

 has been separated from Hiibner's genus Samia, 

 by Dr. Packard of Maine, solely " on account of 

 its slighter form, the front wings being more hook- 

 ed at tip, [chiefly in the male], the hind wings much 

 longer behind, [chiefly in the male], and the front 

 of the head narrower and not so hairy, while in the 

 middle of the wings are partially transparent, tri- 

 angular spots." [In my specimens there are no 

 such spots.] And upon equally loose and indefi- 

 nite characters Mr. Grote, of New York, has sepa- 

 rated the genus Plati/samia from Hiibner's genus 

 Sami'a, to receive the Cecropia moth, restricting 

 Samia to the moth of the Arrhindy silk-worm, (^S. 

 ci/nthia). Of course there can be no limit to such 

 operations as these but the good sense and modera- 

 tion of the author. For as long as any two species 

 remain in the same geaus, it will always be easy to 



