UTAH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES by 
tem which was later widely accepted. His classification 
has attained fullest expression in the system established 
by Handlirsch through Latreille early in the twentieth 
century. 
The following period, the era of Linne and his 
pupils, exhibited unparalleled enthusiasm among biol- 
ogists, the further improvement in dissections and study 
of the life cycles of insects and the discovery of many new 
fields of investigation from the entomological side. 
Up to this time insects had been given popular names, 
or for scientific purposes the name consisted of a short 
descriptive phrase or two, something after this fashion: 
“The little, round, black ladybird with two red spots on 
the elytra.’”” Now with the number of described species of 
insects constantly and rapidly growing, this method led 
natural history swiftly to the rock of confusion for its 
speedy wrecking and possible destruction. Linne, the bot- 
anist, with his great intuitive faculties, however, seems to 
have been born and trained especially to supply this 
want of a proper terminology. ‘“Linne‘s general philo- 
sophical propositions in botany can be traced to Cesal- 
pino, his terminology to Jung, and his doctrine of sex- 
uality to Camerarius.’”’ Thus, we can see that the theory 
of Linne’s classification is essentially Aristotelian and was 
carefully employed in the recognition and sifting of 
the facts in natural affinity and in his interpretation of the 
organs of fructification. Supplementary to classification 
he recognized the prime importance of a short, accurate 
and exact system of terminology. As a result, he took 
up Jung’s system and applied it consistently. Consis- 
tency of application is what Jung did not follow and the 
method was never shown to full advantage until pre- 
sented by Linne. 
Linne recognized the desirability of a natural system 
of classification and admitted that his was to a great 
extent artificial. The former method was necessary to 
trace lines of descent and real affinities in nature, while 
the latter he drew up carefully, basing it primarily upon 
certain arbitrarily selected distinctive structures, and 
offered it to the world simply as a convenient system of 
separating and determining species without too serious 
thought as to their fundamental relationships. Entomol- 
