97 
banded the trees with cloth or straw, and that these bands serve to col- 
lect the codling-moth larvee, which were then destroyed. 
Mr. Gillette had observed the larve of this insect migrating on the 
tree trunks in the spring, contrary to what was supposed to be their 
usual habit. He had observed the larve leaving their winter cocoons 
and moving about on the tree trunks at this time. In his opinion 
banding the trees in the spring was a valuable means for fighting the 
insect. 
Mr. Johnson, in explanation of the common name of Vectarophora 
destructor, stated that this name had been decided upon jointly by 
Messrs. Pergande, Chittenden, and himself; that while the name was 
perhaps open to criticism, it was probably as appropriate as any. He 
also called attention to Mr. Lounsbury’s statement that the red scale 
occurred on other than citrus trees in South Africa, which fact is of 
great importance and worthy of emphasis. 
Mr. Lounsbury said that the red scale was a very common pest on 
the pear in South Africa, that it had an extremely wide range of food 
plants, and that its effect on growing wood was similar to that of the 
San Jose scale. 
Mr. Felt, discussing the matter of common names of insects, 
expressed the opinion that a strict enforcement of the law of priority 
is hardly practical in such cases. It is difficult to change a well-estab- 
lished common name, however inappropriate it may be. He cited the 
failure of an attempt to change the common name of Cliszocampa diss- 
tria from ‘* forest tent caterpillar” to ‘‘forest tentless caterpillar.” 
Mr. Fletcher felt that entomologists were open to grave criticism | 
in not establishing appropriate common names for injurious insects. 
He suggested the appointment of a committee to secure uniformity in 
common names of insects. 
Mr. Woodworth, referring to an experience in this line in California, 
stated that the board of horticulture of that State had formally voted | 
to call Aspidiotus perniciosus the ‘* pernicious scale,” but in spite of | 
their efforts to secure a standing for this name the pest was still gen- | 
erally known as the ‘‘ San Jose scale.” 
Mr. Hopkins discussed at length the confusion arising from varia- 
tion in common names. It was, in his opinion, highly desirable to 
have a uniform common name for each injurious species, similar to 
those adopted by the American Ornithologists Union. He also moved 
the appointment by the chair of a committee on common names. 
Mr. Johnson, referring to the motion just made by Mr. Hopkins, 
called attention to the lack of system in selecting common names of 
scale insects. For instance, Aspediotus ancylus Putnam was known 
as the *‘ Putnam scale,” Aspidiotus forbest Johnson was known as the 
** Forbes scale,” etc. 
6878—No. 26——7 
