96 BULLETIN OP THE BROOKLYN ENT. SOC. 



ed by me as rugosus and assimilis the former being an individ- 

 ual variation." 



Now of course there were some differences between the former 

 12 species, which however disappeared like snow in summer in 

 the large serial collection Dr. Leconte now possesses. 



When I said the majority of collectors will be pleased by a re- 

 duction of names rather than by an increase, let us see, who cuts 

 down the superfluous names. 



Those who pursue the study of specific differences most thorough- 

 ly and possess the largest collections from the greatest number of 

 localities, these not only advocate the reduction, butshow their 

 faith by the unloading of useless names ! 



In regard to the retention of varietal names Mr. Austin's atten- 

 tion might be drawn to the synonymy of Rhipiphorus pectinatus,* 

 in which fifteen names occur, each of which applies to some color 

 variety ! Shall such names as these be allowed to burden our 

 books and memories ? 



Synonyms are as useless as a scaffolding after the house is built 

 and fully as much an eyesore. 



It is difficult to define what precisely constitutes a species just 

 now in this genus-making age. 



A specimen exhibiting some marked differences from a known 

 species is no new species but quickly elevated to the rank of a 



srenus 



Quousque tandem, Catilina etc.,? ! 



I cannot close without citing what Dr. Leconte says Bull. Buff. 

 Soc. 1874, p. 266. 



"Among the crude results of my earlier studies wasamonograph 

 of the genus Pasimachus ; being then inexperienced in the recog- 

 nition of species, I was, like most young naturalists** led to exag- 

 gerate the value of characters which were either individual or 

 unimportant and thus to multiply the supposed distinct forms be- 

 yond what larger series of specimens have shown to be tenable.'" 



Sapienti sat. 



* Trans. Am. Ent. Soc. 1875, p. 124. 



** And a very great many old ones including the modest Editor 



