216 Annals Entomological Society of America [Vol. IV, 



position, as there are only about three hundred others among 

 the "four hundred" that resemble it. 



Often the "title of the journal is present and the number of 

 the volume given, but not the year of the volume. The latter 

 is omitted because it is a matter of common knowledge that the 

 institution or society began its journal way back in the forties 

 and that a new series is begun with each score of years; so that 

 the tale, "Reprinted from the Enigmatical Journal, Series 4, 

 Volume 17" will tell me all that is necessary to be told. From 

 the number of the volume I ought to infer the year of the volume 

 and if I am too much of an "ignoramus" as not to know such a 

 monumental fact as the year a certain society or institution was 

 founded, — well, then "look it up!" 



Similarly, if I read 1906 on a reprint just received, I am to 

 know intuitively that that means the year of the volume, not 

 the year of publication; that the contribution had been in the 

 hands of the editor since 1905, but owing to the press of legis- 

 lative matters on the state printer could not be published until 

 1910. 



It appears ridiculous that a matter intrinsically so simple, 

 and extrinsically of such vital importance as the correct mark- 

 ing of reprints should be so carelessly treated. Or is there really 

 a living editor who would consider the puny additional (?) 

 expense of the line on the reprint giving all the needed informa- 

 tion? Penny wise, pound foolish. Can a simpler solution be 

 found than "Reprinted from the Ecstatic Journal, Series l>, 

 Volume 14, pages 28-67, 1910 (Publ. May, 1910)"? 



Conclusion. 



The scope of matters that are left to our imagination, divini- 

 tion and intuition by scientific papers is monumental. A cata- 

 logue of merchandise that does not describe the ware and state 

 its prices would be flung aside instantly. Vet for science any- 

 thing, no matter how poorly constructed, how poorly presented, 

 should be acceptable. Science should lead the world. But if 

 science in general cannot apply more logic to its methods than 

 taxonomists apply to taxonomy, its leadership will be short- 

 lived. This may be a harsh and pessimistic view; but I believe 

 that I do not stand alone in this attitude. 



Again referring to the merchandise simile — imagine to your- 

 self a catalogue of merchandise, say furniture, that would not 

 bear the proper legend on the cover; further, that the pages 



