THE AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



so in such and such a locality. The Editors 

 niij^Iil, just as well tell us, by way of important 

 and interesting- news, that ''THE man" was 

 elected to the United States Senate from such 

 and such a State, and that immediately npon 

 liis election he married ''THE woman." 



SCIENTIFIC NOMEXCLATrUK. 



A correspondent from C-alit'ornia, Mr. ('. 1*. 

 Faulkner, puts the followinjf questions to us, 

 the answers to which we propose to give in the 

 following- article, inasmuch as those answers 

 cannot be coin|)rised in any very limited com- 

 pass, and will perhai)s be interesting to many 

 otliers of our readers: 



1. How is it that the Strii)ed Oncunil)er Dug 

 is called ^' JJiabrotica rittata" in the J'nir/ird/ 

 Entovwloijist, a.\\A " Galenica viltala" in Har- 

 ris's hijurioits Insects f 



•_'. Should ^^ Li/tta vittdta" be called '• Ejii- 

 cautn riUata/'' 



;>. Should ^^ Lytta cinerea" be called •• Jfa- 

 crohusis Juiliririi?" 



4. Should " Lylla luarf/i/iata'' be called 

 " Epicauta cinerea'" 



Every scientific name for eveiy spe<-ies, whe- 

 ther of animals or of plants, consists of two 

 words either simple or com])ound, the first of 

 whicli is the generic and tlie second the specific 

 designation of the particular species treated of. 

 In popular language the order of these two 

 words is always reversed; for we say " White 

 Oak," ''Burr Oak,"' "Live Oak," etc., in Bot- 

 any; and in Zoology "Cinnamon Bear," "Cxri/.- 

 /ly Bear," " Black Bear," etc., instead of "Oak 

 White," etc., and "Bear Cinnamon," etc., as 

 these same words would be arranged according 

 to scientific rule. This is because scientific 

 names are always Latin or Avhat passes for 

 Latin, and in Latin, as in French, the adjective 

 usually follows instead ot preceding the sub- 

 stantive. In English, on the contrary, the ad- 

 jective must almost invariably come before the 

 substantive to which it belongs. 



Specific Names. 

 As regards the specific name, the general rule 

 in science is, that when once given and estab- 

 lished by a suitable published description it 

 mn>t not be changed, unless it is manifestly in- 

 correct and nngrammatical, or unless the same 

 name has previously been api)lied, by some other 

 author, to some other species belonging to the 

 same genus, or, technically speaking, when tlie 

 name is " pre-occupied." For example, a very 

 large number of our North American Insects 

 received specific names a hundred years ago 

 from LinnMus, and retaiii those very same 



names to the present day. The oidy disputable 

 point here is, what is to be done when a species 

 has been named and described by B in sonic 

 work of scientific authenticity, and when the 

 name given to this species by B has been uni- 

 versally received by the whole scientific world 

 for ten, twenty, or perhaps even fifty years, 

 provided it should subseiiuently be discovered 

 by C that several years before B wrote and pub- 

 lished, A gave to this very same species, in some 

 obscure publication of perhaps of but little or 

 no value, another and a very ditterent name, 

 along with some kind of brief description. Ac- 

 cording to what is known as the " Law of Pri- 

 ority," interi)reted in its utmost rigor, A"s 

 name takes precedence <>f B's, and all the labels 

 in all the Cabinets in Christendom have to be 

 changed so far as regards this particular species. 

 Why? Because it is held that A, who is sup- 

 posed to have established a kind of scientific 

 pre-emption to his new species, will be unjustly 

 treated and dishonored, if his scientific name is 

 not adopted, although perhaps the description 

 upon which that name is based is so brief, ob- 

 scure, incoriect and unsatisfactory, that it is 

 very doubtful whether it really applies to B's 

 species, which may have been described by B 

 fully, clearly and correctly. And yet, in the 

 majority of such cases as these, A is in his 

 grave, and perhaps it would have been a posi- 

 tive benefit to science if he had never been born. 

 So that the practical result is, that, for the sake 

 of appeasing the indignant ghost of some ob- 

 scure and long-forgotten naturalist of the last 

 century, all the naturalists of the present day 

 arc to be inconvenienced, and a great deal of 

 valuable time is to be expended in studying 

 out mere scientific phrases, whicli time might be 

 employed to much better advantage in studying 

 out new scientific fads. 



The popular reader can form no notion of 

 what a nuisance this perpetual disinterment of 

 old buried names has become in the scientific 

 world, but by putting an analogous case in 

 common life. Suppose a set of industrious an- 

 liijuaries were to busy themselves in investigat- 

 ing the genealogies of all the leading business 

 men in the United States, and were to prove by 

 the most satisftictory documents from the difler- 

 cnt Heralds' Colleges in Europe, that Smith's 

 correct name was Jones, and Thompson's pro- 

 per appellation was Johnson, and Cook's real 

 title was Taylor; and suppose it was the estab- 

 lished law that all these unfoi'tunate men had 

 to give up their old names and take up with the 

 new-fangled ones. What confusion there would 

 then be between the old firms of Smith & 



