56 



THE AMERICAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



SCIENTIFIC PHRASEOLOGY. 



[Translated from LeNaturalinieCanadien, yo. 4.] 



Every day we hear formal complaints made 

 against the nomeuclattire adopted in science ; and 

 yet this nomeiiclatnre is a necessity. Doubtless, 

 we ought not to misuse it, and make a silly dis- 

 play of words which will be understood by but 

 very few persons, especially if we are writing 

 to populai-ize science. For above all things, 

 a writer ought to express himself so as to be 

 understood. Every time, therefore, that we are 

 treating of a plant or an animal that has a popular 

 name, we must not hesitate to make use of that 

 name, because we may be sure that it will be un- 

 derstood more surel3^and more readily than any 

 other. But we wish that the scientific name like- 

 wise should be always mentioned along with the 

 popular name, in order to avoid mistakes. For it 

 will sometimes happen that such and such a 

 plant, or such and such an animal, bears such 

 and such a popular name in one place, and 

 such and such another popular name in another 

 place. Thus, in the district of Trois-Uivieres, 

 humble-bees (bombus) are "humble-bees," and 

 horse-flies, (iabanus) are " horse-flies." The 

 people there know perfectly well how to distin- 

 guish the one from the other. They know that 

 the humble-bee has got four wings and a sting 

 in its tail, and that the horse-fly has only got 

 two wings, and has no sting in its tail. On 

 the other hand, in the district of Quebec, 

 people do not know how to distinguish between 

 these two genera. No matter whether the in- 

 sects have but two wings, or whether they have 

 as many as four wings, they are called indis- 

 criminately "horse-flies." "We may judge then 

 if it is easy to understand folks when they talk of 

 the manners and habits of one animal, and use 

 the name that properly belongs to another ani- 

 mal. For instance, if a Quebec man proceeds 

 to say at Trois-Rivieres that "he has found a nest 

 of horse-flies" in the ground, and that there was 

 a good deal of honey in it, the Trois-Eiveres folks 

 will laugh in his face, because there they know 

 very well that horse-flies do not make any nests, 

 and that they never produce any honey. Just 

 such a mistake as this was actually made not long 

 ago by (he Gazette des Campagnes. Speaking of 

 the Flea-beetles (Haltica) that infest cabbages, 

 turnips, etc., and intending to saj- that, when 

 spent ashes were thrown upon them, they might 

 be seen jumping in all directions, instead of 

 calling them " Flea-beetles," which would have 

 been correct and would have been understood 

 by the whole woi-ld, it called them " Plant-lice " 

 (aphis) ! What an absurd blunder ! the idea of 



plant-lice jumping! "Why, there is still more 

 difference between a flea-beetle and a plant-louse 

 than there is between a dog and a turkey. 

 Now, if in speaking of this bird, whatever name 

 we chose to give it, we were to say that, as it 

 walked about, it lifted up one leg and wetted 

 every post that it came across, judge what 

 astonishment we should produce ! Both in the 

 district of Quebec and in that of Trois-Rivieres, 

 they commonly call the little yellow beetles with 

 black stripes (J) iiafiroijoa vittata) which infest the 

 leaves of melons, cucumbers, pumpkins, etc., by 

 the name of "plant-lice," and the flea-beetles by 

 the name of "earth-fleas." In fact, in Canada 

 we are almost completely bare of recognized 

 popular names for animals, especially so far as 

 regards insects, of which there are scarcely a 

 score that have special names appropriated to 

 them. Our compatriots who speak the English 

 language are scarcely better olf in this respect 

 than we are. Amongst them, almost all insects 

 are called either "flies" or "bugs; it is "the 

 cucumber-BUG," "the potato-BUG," " the rose- 

 BU(i," etc., and a man that hunts after all kinds 

 of insects is nothing but a " BUG-hunter." 



HOGS vs. CURCULIO, 



[ from the Rural New Yorker, Aug. 28, 1869.] 



In the Rural of July 31, L. L. Fairchild calls 

 for experience and facts under the above 

 heading. 



Here is my experience, which satisfies me 

 that hogs are the best plum cultivators: — I 

 bought a farm that had some twenty very fine 

 plum trees on it. In spring they would bloom 

 full, and when the fruit was about half grown 

 all would fall off, which was really vexing. I 

 threatened to grub them up as cumberers of the 

 ground ; but this was protested against, saying 

 may be they will ripen next year. 



I wanted a lot to feed hogs in, and the plum 

 orchard was right where I wanted them, but I 

 was persuaded to fence in only a part of the 

 trees, which was done in early spring. All the 

 trees blossomed full, and when the fruit was 

 about half grown the trees out of the hog lot 

 played their old tricks; all the fruit fell off; but 

 the trees in the hog lot did not shed their fruit, 

 though the hogs had almost dug them up by the 

 roots. The trees grew well and the fruit also, 

 and every tree had to be propped up. The fruit 

 ripened, and was excellent. 



The next season the fence was changed, and 

 run around all the rest of the trees in the orch- 

 ard, and all included in the hog lot without a 

 protest. All produced ripe fruit for years. 



This was only accidental; but it is experi- 

 ence, and to me is proof enough. I advise all, 

 in setting plum trees, to set them where thej"^ 

 can have their hogs run. Others have tried the 

 experiment, and can testify to the same results. 

 Hogs will save plums. G. G. 



Union Citt, Ind., 1869. 



