22 THE REPORT OF THE No. 33 



There appear to be entomologists who take the greatest delight in sur- 

 rounding their specialization with a barricade of complex terminology, perhaps 

 hoping thus to eliminate all contenders for their crown. They have the habit 

 of describing their pets in such a manner that it is next to impossible to penetrate 

 their meaning and arrive at even a remote understanding of their subject. 

 Perhaps I am one of them, and if so I condemn myself without reservation. 

 No one who has had occasion to refer to the monographs by Loew and Osten 

 Sacken can find fault with the simple, concise, clear phraseology. These men 

 knew how much to say and how much to omit, an accomplishment which we 

 should to-day attempt to emulate. Many of us appear to lose sight of the fact 

 that we are not, or at any rate should not be, working for our own glory. If 

 by doing good work we accomplish glory, that is another matter, and something 

 to our credit, but to work solely for that glory and to fancy we have attained it, 

 is an admission that we have failed in an unworthy cause. The main need in 

 entomology to-day is not the building up of obscure terminology, but a com- 

 prehension of English, or whatever language we speak, which will enable us to 

 place our findings before the world in such a manner that they may be com- 

 prehended by even the poorest student. 



Most entomologists have had frequent occasion to use keys or tables o* 

 species, genera or families, and few, I think, have not raved at the inconsistencies 

 of the delineator. No doubt I have caused some such scenes myself, and if I 

 have not, it is through no fault of my own. The making of a key is, in my 

 opinion, the most difficult task we must face. It is easy to concoct one which 

 will suit our own enlightened mind, but others may be left almost entirely in 

 the dark. The trouble, I believe, is due to the lumping of various characters 

 in the antitheses, instead of relying upon one character, and the failure to place 

 doubtful specimens under more than one section. 



There are tendencies to "lump" and to "split." What is their effect? 

 Which is the more desirable? In my opinion the lumping of species has done 

 much more to confuse the student than any other procedure. This is especially 

 true in the Muscoid groups where, very often, many legitimate species have 

 been placed in the synonymy merely because the descriptions read alike. Unfor- 

 tunately some workers will do their utmost to make a description fit a species 

 when they are sure it does not, and there are others who will insist upon arriving 

 at a conclusion that the author was in error in not mentioning characters which 

 the specimen under examination exhibits, or that the colours were wrongly 

 given, and the specimen must be that species, and so determine it. Why it 

 should be concluded that an author meant yellow when he said brown, or grey 

 when he said green, I do not know, but I do know that such is often the case, 

 judging by determinations I have seen. Of course, some writers do appear to 

 mean reddish when they say yellow or yellow when they say white, so perhaps 

 there is some excuse for the aforementioned conclusion. One of the require- 

 ments for all taxonomists should be the passing of a test for colour-blindness. 



The "splitters" are often roundly condemned, yet they do not create nearly 

 as much trouble as the "lumpers." The chief cause of complaint against the 

 "splitter," who is really advancing science by looking deeper than the average 

 person, lies in the persistency of the student to make two species out of one. 

 I have spent many hours trying to make slight variants fit the description of 

 one or two apparently closely allied forms, only to feel like kicking myself 

 soundly at such time as the other species came to hand. The "splitter" is a 

 keen student as a rule, and even if his enthusiasm does sometimes carry him 

 beyond a reasonable limit, he may be excused, as he does not as a rule cause 



