288 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [Nov., '03 



The Coccidae of Ohio. 

 By F. M. Webster.* 



In the June number of the current volume of the Ento- 

 mological News, Mr. George B. King finds what appears to 

 him to be sufficient grounds for a republication of a previous 

 partial list of the Coccidae of Ohio, by myself and Mr. Bur- 

 gess. The chief objection to the former list seems to lie in 

 the fact that names were used, that, though they have stood 

 for years, and no one in reading the paper would be in the 

 least doubt as to the identity of the species, they did not ac- 

 cord with recent changes in nomenclature. These older names 

 have since been applied to these same species, and, in fact, are 

 still being so applied by those who are writing upon subjects 

 relating to them. It is unfortunate that the real progress in 

 entomology in this country is hampered, by the fact that any- 

 body can take up and revise a genus or group of insects, re- 

 vive names that have not been in use for a lifetime, mean 

 nothing, as they may have been used to describe mere local 

 forms and do not apply to the true species at all. Frequently 

 the ink is hardly dry from one of these entomological earth- 

 quakes before another writer, with more zeal than knowledge 

 of his subject, starts another and sometimes a worse one, 

 though it not unfrequently happens that in this way species 

 get thrown back under their previous names. To such an ex- 

 tent is this true that those who are obliged to use these terms 

 in the applied science pay little attention to such seismic phe- 

 nomena, but continue to apply whatever name is best known, 

 as being the one that will be least likely to be misunderstood 

 by the reader. . This seems to have been the most serious 

 crime committed by Mr. Burgess and myself in putting out 

 our partial list, and for which I myself have no further apology 

 to present. There are a few corrections in the revised list that 

 are of value, and for these we are of course thankful, but 

 these" could have been given without a republication of the 

 whole paper, and would have been less autocratic in ap- 

 pearance. 



Mr. King takes occasion to add a supplement to .the list of 



