196 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. IV, 



Furthermore, it is typical of many descriptions of the past, and, 

 I regret to say, of too many in the present days. 



It is curious how little logic is often applied in formulating 

 a description. One specialist, who has written hundreds of 

 descriptions, seems to have found particular pride in making 

 these as intricate and involved as possible; there is no logical 

 sequence in the treatment of the main divisions; on the contrary, 

 the acrobatic description jumps from antennae to legs, from 

 abdomen to head, wings to palpi, venation to tarsi, morpholo- 

 gical characters to vestiture, color to structure, etc., etc. So 

 much so, that after comparison is completed one must begin 

 over again, as it is impossible to remember the way through 

 the labyrinth. 



Descriptions should not be written for personal aggrandize- 

 ment, but to announce a new fact or discovery to the scientific 

 world. Such being the case, the description, once published, 

 belongs to the world at large and no longer to the writer. The 

 author therefore owes it to science that the facts of which the 

 world is to become owner be presented in a manner most acces- 

 sible to, and best applicable by other men. If the author for 

 any reason whatsoever is careless and inaccurate he sins against 

 science. After all, there is an intellectual as well as a moral 

 conscience. 



"Head pale, eyes small, dark, vestitute smooth and yellowish, 

 body moderate, legs short, tibiae stout," applies equally well 

 to Mr. Jones as to Pediculus capitis strolling on his head. 

 Brevity may be the point of wit, but science is no joke; taxonomy 

 deals with facts, not idiosyncracies. Who has not felt the bane 

 of two to eight lined descriptions, any one of which harmonizes 

 easily with half a dozen or more distinct species? I do not be- 

 lieve that an entomologist lives who has not at one time or other 

 execrated these brief, vacillating descriptions. But why do ento- 

 mologists continually write others that are no whit better or 

 longer? Let it be known, that one thorough description cover- 

 ing three pages may be of more use and more valuable to sci- 

 ence than three descriptions on one page. One may suggest that 

 the perusal of brief descriptions saves time; but when we come 

 to analytic comparison of closely related species the brief descrip- 

 tion forms an obstacle which results in considerable loss of time. 

 What of genera whose species are extremely variable? Can the 

 extent of specific variation together with a description of the aver- 



