ENTOMOLOGIST AM) BOTANIST. 



171 



SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE. 



Ordinarily, if we seek to convey information 

 on any important subject, we make our language 

 as plain and clear as our ability permits us. In 

 treating of scientific subjects some authors seem to 

 reverse this common-sense rule, and to conceive 

 that the harder and more unusual the words arc 

 iu which they clothe their ideas, the more fitting 

 and appropriate they are for the purpose of in- 

 struction. This, at all events, is the most 

 charitable construction we can put upon their 

 conduct, for surel}' it is not the avowed object 

 of the instructor to puzzle and bewilder his 

 pupils. These i-emarks, although applicable to 

 the language of scientific treatises in general, 

 are especially so to those written on the "Natural 

 Sciences," and particularly to those on Botany 

 and Entomology. With the former I do not 

 propose to deal at present. 



Dr. Knaggs tells us that ^'pursuit of truth, 

 ii-ith a lore of nature, and a laudalile desire to 

 investigate the histories of the wonderful organ- 

 isms which God has, in his insdom, created," 

 are among the motives that induce men to be- 

 come entomologists. Such being the case, it 

 certainly is to be regretted that the enthusiasm 

 of the young student should be at all repressed 

 by the unfortunate fact that his instructions are 

 couched in a language which, as Home Tooke 

 observed of Dr. Johnson's Dictioiiary, is as 

 much the language of Hottentots as of English- 

 men. 



It is of importance to remember that this is 

 by no means exclusively the complaint of the 

 amateur entomologist. Years ago, Jas. liennie 

 denounced the scientific jargon of professed 

 entomologists in this wise : 



" In describing species, either well known, or 

 • new to our 'Fauna'' or our 'Flora,' the current 

 style, misnamed scientific, maybe fairly charac- 

 terized as a uniform tissue of pedantic barbar- 

 isms, devised, it would appear, not for the 

 diffusion, but for the concealment of knowledge. 

 If the descriptions atf'ect to be in English, the 

 language employed is assuredlv not P^nglish. 

 Thuswe have 'flaVous* and 'luteous' for'yellow,' 

 'griseous' for 'grey,' 'fuscous 'for dusky; while 

 similar Avords are" not only compounded with 

 Latin derivatives, as 'ochraceous-fuscous,' mean- 

 ing, I conjecture, dusky buflf, but with plain 

 English, such as ' testaceous-red,' ' hoary-grise- 

 ous,' ' griseons-rosy," 'rusty-testaceous,' and 

 numerous others equally oftensive to good 

 taste." 



I need quote no further from this author, 

 because our every-day reading affords us in- 

 stances of what I can not but consider useless 

 displays of possible erudition. I say useless. 



because it is evident that the assertion that it is 

 necessary to use terms derived from the " learned 

 languages" in teaching a science which is some- 

 times studied by persons not acquainted with 

 the English language, will not bear a moment's 

 investigation. 



In a work devoted to entomology I find the 

 following sentence: "Head and thorax, above, 

 obscure broton mixed with ashen scales. Abdo- 

 men, obscure testaceous-cinereous.''' By reference 

 to a Latin dictionary we find that "testaceous" 

 may mean "brick-colored," and "cinereous"' 

 "ashen-grey." So "obscure testaceous-cinereous" 

 means a color which is an "obscure brick-colored 

 ashen-greij;" and anybody who is sufficiently 

 versed in the English language to understand 

 the phrase, " Head and thorax obscure-brown," 

 would probably understand "obscure brick- 

 colored ashen-grey '' just as readily as he would 

 comprehend "obscure testaceous-cinereovs," the 

 probability being that he would understand 

 neither. The newspapers have been laughing 

 at some contemporary for describing an oyster 

 as a " marine acephalous mollusc of the lamelli- 

 brauchiate order of the genus ostrea;" but is 

 there anything iu this more absurd than is to be 

 found in many a text book on entomology? 



With reference to mere names, I have little 

 objection to the use of "learned terms," for 

 here there is some necessity for their use. I 

 should have less objection if the terms selected 

 conveyed any idea of generic or specific differ- 

 ence, or gave any notion of the nature or ap- 

 pearance of the thing thus named. For instance 

 no one can avoid seeing that the word ligustri 

 is properly applied to a moth, the larva of which 

 feeds on the privet, and crategci (o one feeding 

 on the black thorn. 



But it is notorious that names are not always 

 thus judiciously bestowed, indeed very rarely 

 so ; and a recent English author, writing a book 

 for the use of the young entomologist, thinks it 

 necessary to give the following advice. 



After stating that it is necessary for the stu- 

 dent to know the Latin names of insects, because 

 they are current iu all European languages, he 

 says: "Another piece of advice is, don't r»a«fe 

 time in trying to puzzle out the meaning — the 

 why or the wherefore — of the butterflies' names. 

 Now and then, certainly, they have some allu- 

 sion to the insect's appearance, or to the plant 

 on which it feeds; thus, for instance, Gonep- 

 teryx rhumni, the entomological name of the 

 Brimstone Butterfly, means Angle-winged (but- 

 terfly) of the Buckthorn, and this is very 

 appropriate and descriptive; but in general 

 there is no more connection between the name 



