218 THE SCOLYTID BEETLES. 



NOMENCLATURE. 



Nomenclature, as applied to taxonomy, is a subject on which there 

 are wide differences of opinion, and it is evident that until there is 

 more uniformity there will be continued contributions to the con- 

 fusion of knowledge along with those which contribute to its advance- 

 ment. 



It seems to the writer that the subject of designating by name 

 varieties, forms, races, subspecies, and subgenera should demand the 

 special attention of systematists with the \'iew of commg to an under- 

 standing as to the limiting of such names to the more definite con- 

 cepts, as those of the species or genus. It would seem that if we 

 should limit the names to the species, genera, subfamilies, families, 

 and superfamilies within an order and designate the major and minor 

 divisions of each as divisions (I, II), subdivisions (A, B, C, D), sections 

 (al, a2, etc.), subsections (bl, b2, etc.), series (cl, c2, etc.), and sub- 

 series (el, e2, etc.), it would be in the line of progress toward a con- 

 sistent, practical, and uniform method of expressing the varying 

 ranks as interpreted by different authors. It would avoid, at the 

 same time, the use of names for divisions and subdivisions which 

 have different meanings in the systems proposed by different authors 

 and prevent the accumulation of obsolete names with every change or 

 important advance in the classification. 



In the systematic treatment of the scolytoid beetles the writer fails 

 to see the need of recognizing subspecies or subgenera. The species 

 and the genus are the two most important biological concepts on 

 which to base both systematic and economic investigations. They 

 serve, also, as the most important units on which to base a classifica- 

 tion. Therefore the writer holds that the individual represents a 

 species and that a species represents a genus; hence the introduction 

 of the trinomial for a subspecies and the naming of a subgenus are 

 unnecessary. Moreover, he believes that a general practice of giving 

 names to such divisions of these taxonomic units will ultimately lead 

 to endless confusion and retard rather than advance the spirit of 

 research and the acquisition of knowledge. At best the designation of 

 the species and the genus to which a given individual should be refer- 

 red is an arbitrary interpretation of a concept. Therefore, when an 

 author designates an individual or a group of individuals as repre- 

 senting a subspecies, or a group of species as representing a subgenus, 

 it involves the assumption that the concept is a fact and that he has 

 sufficient knowledge of this fact to enable him to analyze it into com- 

 ponent categories the relations of which are so definitely determined 

 as to justify the subordination of one part to another. 



There is such a wide range for the interpretation of specific and 

 generic distinctions and such a vast difference in the relative rank of 

 such distinctions, between isolated survivors of highly specialized and 



