THE AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



so in such and such a locality. The Editors 

 nii^'ht just as well toll us, by way of important 

 and interesting news, that " THE man " was 

 elected to the United States Senate IVoni Mich 

 :iMd such a State, and that immediately upon 

 his election he married •■ TllK woman." 



St'IENTII'Mr NOJl KNCLATUUE. 



A correspondent from California, JMr. C 1*. 

 Faulkner, puts the following questions to us, 

 (he answers to which we propose to give in (he 

 following article, inasmuch as (Iiose answers 

 cannot be comprised in any very limited com- 

 pass, and will perhaps be in(eres(iiig to many 

 o(l]<>rs of onr readers: 



1. How is il ihal (he Striped Cneiinilier Bug 

 is called ■' DluliiuiUr,! rlllitta- in the Prdrl iriil 

 Unfomologist, iuxd •' (idlcnirn rillatn" in Har- 

 ris's Injurious Insects .' 



•2. Should "Li/tta ril/dlft" be called - A'/ii- 

 cautn viltuta.''' 



:;. Should •■ l.nil't riite,;;i" be called - M<i- 

 eniliasls [■•,il,ri<-ii .'" 



1. Sbc.nld ■■ Liitta ,n,>r<jiiial<i" be called 

 •• Kiiiauitu ciiien'U.'" 



Every scieutitic name lor every species, whe- 

 (her of animals or of plan(s, consists of two 

 words either simple or compound, the first of 

 which is the generic and the second the spe(;ille 

 designation of the particular species treated of. 

 In popular language the order of these two 

 words is alwiiys reversed; for we say " White 

 Oak,'" •• Burr Oak,'" " Live Oak," etc., in Bot- 

 any ; and in Zoology '•Cinnamon Bear," "Griz- 

 zly Bear," " Black Bear,"' etc., instead of -'Oak 

 White," etc., and "Bear Cinnamon," etc., as 

 these same words would be arranged according 

 to scieutitic rule. This is because scieutitic 

 names are always Latin or what passes for 

 Latin, and in Latin, as in French, the adjective 

 nsnally follows instead ol preceding the sub- 

 stantive. In English, on the contrary, the ad- 

 jective must almost invariably come before the 

 substantive to which it belongs. 



S|iecific Xanu's. 

 As regards (he specihe name, the general rule 

 in science is, that when once given and estab- 

 lished by a suitable published description it 

 must not be changed, uidess it is manifestly in- 

 correct and ungraminatical, or unless the same 

 name has previously been applied, by some other 

 author, to some other species belonging to the 

 same genus, or, technically speaking, when (he 

 uame is " i)re-occupied." For example, a very 

 large number of our North American Insects 

 received specific names a hundred years ago 

 i'rom LiunseuS; and retaiu those very same 



names to the present day. The only disputable 

 l)oint here is, what is to be done when a species 

 has been named and described by B in some 

 work of scientific anthenlicity, and when the 

 name given to this species by B has been uni- 

 versally received by the whole scientific world 

 for ten, twenty, or perhaps even fifty years, 

 provided it should subsceiucntly be discovered 

 by C (hat several years before B wrote and pub- 

 lished, A gave to this very same species, in some 

 ob.scurc publication of perhaps of but little or 

 no value, another and a very dift'ercnt name, 

 along with some kind of brief description. Ac- 

 cording to what is known as the " Law of Pri- 

 ori(y,"' interpreted in its utmost rigor, A's 

 nanu! (akes precedence of B's, and all the labels 

 in Mil the Cabinets in Christendom have to be 

 changed so far as regards this particular species. 

 Why? Because it is held that A, who is sup- 

 posed to have established a kiiul of scientific 

 pre-emption to his new species, will be unjustly 

 treated and dishonored, if his scientific name is 

 iHit adopted, although perhaps the description 

 iil)on which that name is based is so brief, ob- 

 scure, incorrect and unsatisfactory, that it i.s 

 very doubtful whether it really applies to B's 

 species, which may have been described by B 

 fnliy, clearly and correctly. And yet, in the 

 majority of such cases as these, A is in his 

 grave, and perhaps it would have been a posi- 

 tive benefit to science if he had never been born. 

 So (hat the practical result is, that, for the sake 

 of appeasing the indignant ghost of .some ob- 

 scure and long-forgotten naturalist of the last 

 century, all the naturalists of the present day 

 are to be inconvenienced, and a great deal of 

 valuable time is to be expended in studying 

 out mere scientific j^hrases, which time might be 

 employed to much better advantage in studying 

 out new scientific /ac^s. 



The popular reader can form no notion of 

 what a luiisance this perpetual disinterment of 

 old buried names has become in the scientific 

 W(jrld, but by putting an analogous case in 

 common life. Suppose a set of industrious an- 

 (iipiaries were to busy themselves in investigat- 

 ing the genealogies of all the leading business 

 men in the Uiuted States, and were to prove by 

 the most satisfactory documents from the diflfer- 

 eiit Heralds' Colleges in Europe, that Smith's 

 correct name was Jones, and Thompson's pro- 

 l)er appellation was Johnson, and Cook's real 

 tide was Taylor; and suppose it was the estab- 

 lished law that all these unfortunate men had 

 to give up their old names and take up with the 

 new-fangled ones. "What confusion there would 

 then be between the old firms of Smith & 



