272 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [June, *12 
almost daily have a right to know who these “specialists” are. The 
aim, I believe, is to preserve generic names that have been in con- 
stant use regardless of priority. But, to take an example from your 
list what is done in the case of Corethra? The name as it stands in 
that list is not in the sense in which it has been generally used. There 
is a large classic literature on “Co-ethra” in the opposite sense (that is, 
with plumicornis as type) which is very familiar and very important to 
those who are something more than systematists. Moreover, I am 
not aware that anyone has checked up Mr. Coquillett’s results regard- 
ing the status of this genus. Again, take the genus Stegomyia. The 
concept of this genus is an absurdity. It was made to include species 
which are unrelated and which are united on mere colorational simi- 
larities. But.the name gained great popularity because it was applied 
to the species of mosquito proved to be the transmitter of yellow fever. 
Medical literature, entomological literature, and above all popular pseu- 
doscientific literature, immediately became flooded with mentions of 
“Stegomyta fasciata” and “the Stegomyia.” Evidently the standing of 
the genus from the scientific standpoint means nothing to these con- 
servators, the fact that it hgs been much used makes its retention im- 
perative! Incidentally, the type of the genus is Culex fasciatus Fabri- 
cius. We shall soon arrive at the point where there will be zoologists 
and nomenclaturists; it will then be better to let these latter go their 
way.—FREDERICK KNAB. 
[The statement of the alternatives on which we have been asking votes 
was adopted verbatim from that on which the Scandinavian and Ger- 
man naturalists voted, for the sake of a uniform international vote. 
The responsibility for the generic names of Diptera published in the 
May NEws, pp. 2209-232, rests entirely with Dr. Stiles and his coadjutors. 
The list was referred to in our May editorial in illustration of a method 
by which an interational selection of nomina conservanda might be made, 
but we do not presume to say whether the types have or have not been 
correctly determined. That is for the Dipterists to decide—Ed.] 
Ir occurs To me that the method applicable to one group might not 
be advantageous when applied to others. Would it be practical to as- 
sign some future date as a date from which well established names 
(I refer to generic names) should not be changed on grounds of pri- 
ority from obscure and remote sources? For example, in ornithology, 
say in five or ten years, names of general and unquestioned use up to 
that time, should not be changed. In sciences dealing with more ob- 
scure groups which have received a more limited study, possibly the 
time should be longer, e. g., the time for fixing names of stone flies 
might be postponed for twenty-five years. I realize, of course, that 
the groups to which little study has been given have a limited litera- 
