ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 
[The Conductors of ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS solicit and will thank- 
fully receive items of news likely to interest its readers from any source. 
The author’s name will be given in each case, for the information of 
cataloguers and bibliographers.] 
TO CONTRIBUTORS.—AII contributions will be considered and passed 
upon at our earliest convenience, and, as far as may be, will be published 
according to date of reception. ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS has reached 
a circulation, both in numbers and circumference, as to make it neces- 
Sary to put “copy’’ into the hands of the printer, for each number, four 
weeks before date of issue. This should be remembered in sending special 
or important matter for a certain issue. Twenty-five ‘‘extras,’’ without 
change in form and without covers, will be given free, when they are 
wanted; if more than twenty-five copies are desired, this should be stated 
on the MS. The receipt of all papers will be acknowledged. Proof will 
be sent to authors for correction only when specially requested.—Ed. 
PHILADELPHIA, PA., MAy, 1912. 
Strict Priority in Nomenclature—or Not? 
The editorial on this subject in the News for March, page 
128, having brought responses, some of which were printed in 
our issue for April, page 181, it is proposed to comment here 
on Mr. Caudell’s statement (J. c., page 181) for the case of the 
strict priorists. 
It must be said first that the Editor assumes entire respon- 
sibility for that which follows. 
The following propositions appear fundamental : 
I. Nomenclature is a means, not an end; a means whereby we at- 
tempt to designate certain objects of study. 
II. The names of animals and of plants are not for the systematist 
or taxonomist only; they are for the anatomist, the physiologist, the 
ecologist, the student of habits, of behavior, of distribution, of phylogeny, 
as well. Their right to use these names is as great as the systematist’s. 
III. A stable nomenclature is desirable on account of al] of these 
kinds of students. 
We maintain also that the “Law” of priority has not given the 
stability it was expected to give, that recent experience leads one to 
think that many names, now apparently of earliest date, are quite likely 
to be rejected as the result of further antiquarian research tomorrow 
or the day after. 
224 
