1924 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 23 



the confusion of the "lumper." I do not think, however, that there is any 

 excuse for carrying on the splitting of genera to such an abnormal degree as 

 has been done in the Muscoidea. I gather from my studies in this group that 

 some students consider that there can be only one species in a genus, unless it 

 should happen by some inavoidable accident that it is practically impossible to 

 tell the two species apart, in which case there might be two. At any rate it 

 must be admitted that if we are to follow the lead shown here, we shall have to 

 entirely discard genera and know the myriads of insects by their Christian names. 

 What we need is not numerous genera, but more definite generic limitations. 

 We must not lose sight of the fact that families and genera are an aid in deter- 

 mining the species — the species is the ultimate, the genus, family, and order 

 the means of attaining it. 



Thus far I have not dealt with synonymy, a phase of entomology which is 

 extremely perplexing. It is discouraging to discover that an old and well- 

 known genus is not that genus at all, but some other one, or that some other 

 one is that one and that one cannot be it. If I do not make myself clear it is 

 entirely because the subject is complex and rather inexplicable. At any rate, 

 the rules of nomenclature demand that the oldest valid name for a genus or 

 species be used and many changes are due to this fact. In other cases the 

 name may be pre-occupied. This practice is, of course, to give honour where 

 honour is due and as such is a commendable one. 



I am of the opinion that a great many of the changes are unwarranted. 

 Certainly great caution should be used before proposing an older name to 

 replace a well-known one. I believe that a great many species attributed to 

 the older writers and considered as genotypes are unrecognizable, either from 

 the description or due to the fact that the writer had more than one species 

 before him in describing a species or in placing it under a generic name. Verrall 

 has remarked upon the large number of Linne's species which are recognizable. 

 I do not agree, but consider that the majority of the species described by the 

 first systematist are recognizable due to the courtesy of subsequent students. 

 I heartily agree that the names should be attributed to Linne — we cannot do 

 sufficient to honour him — but I repeat that every care should be taken before 

 invalidating a popular genus in favour of a genus founded on a species proposed 

 by an early worker. 



There are few people in America who can separate the species of Syrphus 

 accurately and I venture to say that anyone founding a genus on one of the 

 species allied, to 5. ribesii would find, upon close examination, if he had a large 

 series of specimens, that there was more than one species in the series. Further, 

 if the specimens were distributed, so that only two or three remained, all of the 

 same species, and they were examined, it might be found that they did not 

 agree with the generic description in some respect, yet being the alleged geno- 

 type, the generic concept would be changed to agree with them, whereas the 

 actual genotype would be lost. I admit that this is possibly a far-fetched 

 example, but it is certainly not any more erroneous to believe that such a case 

 has often happened than to accept determinations over a hundred years old, 

 or genera based upon such determinations. And even to-day we sometimes 

 determine species wrongly! It is a simple matter. 



No one takes more pleasure than I in tying down an old name. I glory 

 in the fact that I have accomplished something much better than the addition 

 to the lists of several species new to science. But at the same time I do not 

 believe in making things fit a description and am sure that in such cases a 

 grave error is committed. I believe that there is a tendency to-day to ignore 



