October. 1913 Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 97 



the first and last instances, the longed-for stability will be as much 

 a will-o'-the-wisp as it is to-day, for we shall have never-ending 

 changes and no man will know where he stands. In the second 

 case, a considerable number will adhere to the findings of such a 

 committee, especially those who have little independence of 

 thought and who will then, as now, kow-tow to any Grand Pan- 

 jandrum, as well as certain ones who have magnanimity and self- 

 lessness enough to acquiesce rather than retard the progress of 

 science by petty bickerings over immaterial things. Outside of 

 these there will be a large minority of active, intense workers, 

 who are conscious of better facilities for information and who will 

 continue to be independent of any Committee or other agency 

 tending to restrict their scientific independence, just as there 

 are now. 



On the other hand, it must be admitted that there are any 

 number of nomenclatorial body-snatchers, prowling around the 

 forgotten graves of forgotten men, together with a goodh' sprink- 

 ling of eugenists, always ready to improve the child of another's 

 brain though themselves barren as the desert. These resurrec- 

 tionists dig and delve and search and attempt to revivify things 

 as dead as the Pharaohs and not nearly as useful and well- 

 preserved. Nevertheless, much good has been done b>" these 

 revivifiers, even though their wheat be deeply overlaid with chaff; 

 they gamer that others may winnow. 



In the eugenists, the improvers, the emmendators classical 

 and otherwise, we have the head and front of the offending! 

 From much of their work has arisen this unending synonymy, 

 this endless labor to arrive at a firm foundation for nomenclature. 

 Not content with the name another has originated, they change, 

 improve, amend, and frequently, being men of real eminence 

 themselves., they have succeeded in imposing their will on their 

 followers, till some one keener, more logical has arisen to overturn 

 their work. Thus many a man has gotten credit for another's 

 work, merely through correcting a spelling, or, less legitimately, 

 by renaming something because the other man's naming did not 

 appeal to his fancy. 



Thus, the whole nomenclatorial question is complicated by 

 the unwarranted activities of misguided enthusiasts. Priority is 

 always at the mercy not only of individual judgment, but also of 



