57 



must often be at a loss as to what generic or specific name to use in 

 his writings to make sure that his species will be certainly recognized 

 by other entomologists. 



I venture to say that not one-half of the distinguished entomologists 

 gathered here would be able to give off-hand the "correct" generic 

 and specific combination for a couple of dozen common insects, to 

 include such frequently discussed species as codling moth, oyster-shell 

 scale, plum curculio, fall webworm, etc. 



Even with access to a considerable body of literature he would have 

 great difficulty in some cases to decide which was the latest or which 

 was backed by the highest authority. 



The name Oarpocapsa pomoneUa may very likely persist for some 

 time in economic literature, though our systematic friends now place 

 it in Cydia. The oyster-shell scale I learned under the name of Aspi- 

 diofus conchiformis, a little later I knew it as Mytilaspis pomicorticis, 

 then as Mytilaspis pomorum, then as Mytilaspis idmi, and now I 

 must again revise the name and call it Lepidosaplies ulmi — all this 

 within my short experience in economic work. I am not yet the old- 

 est relic in the field. This species, by the way, has been treated 

 under 6 different generic names, 12 different specific names, and in 

 25 different combinations. Aspidiotus liederce, which for assurance 

 we may mention as the oleander scale, is about as bad, for with 3 

 generic names and 30 different specific names, it has had 38 differ- 

 ent combinations. 



To the beginner this confusion is especially perplexing, often dis- 

 heartening, and I believe in many cases is resjDonsible for promising 

 students going into other lines of science where the complexities of 

 nomenclature are less trying. 



Now, I must not be interpreted as inveighing against the effort to 

 reach a basis of nomenclature in technical entomology that will give 

 stability and precision. As a systematist I fully realize the impor- 

 tance as well as the difficulty of securing stability, and I am only 

 objecting to the insistence on carrying the conflict, with its necessary 

 upheavals and shiftings, over into the realm of economic entomology. 

 This branch, from its very nature, demands that its results, in order 

 to be of service to the people, for which they are sought, shall be pre- 

 sented in such form that the many may understand. 



I am perfectly aware that there are hosts of insects whose common 

 or vernacular names are so indefinite, so variable, or for some reason 

 so unacceptable that the only basis of precision lies in the acceptance 

 of a technical name which, even if changeable, is at least traceable in 

 successive publications. 



On the other hand, we do have a number of common names which 

 are strictly distinctive for certain widespread and familiar insects, 

 names that have been much more persistent and unchangeable than 

 the technical names applied to the same species, and the suggestion I 



