IV 



stricted paper on classification or genetics. Our concern for fixity 

 carries especially to those few names which are historically significant, 

 and our discussion of each of these, as they occur in the list, attempts 

 to justify their retention and continued usage as valid and significant 

 names. 



We have attempted to fit each generic name into the pattern of 

 availability outlined in the 1961 International Code of Zoological 

 Nomenclature. In regard to spelling, we have, as a basic procedure, 

 accepted the original published spelling of each name as the proper 

 one for continued usage if the genus appears to be valid. If sub- 

 sequent emendations have been suggested, they too have been listed, as 

 well as obvious misspellings that usually can be attributed to manu- 

 script or printer's errors. However, positive differentiation between 

 incidentally proposed emendations and simple misspellings has not 

 always been possible. Respecting already proposed or possible emen- 

 dations, we decline to take responsibility for changes that would 

 bring the generic names into strict accord with the provisions of Arti- 

 cles 26-33 of the 1961 Code, for three reasons : First, it is our conviction 

 that acceptance of original spelling is a simple, consistent, and satis- 

 factory basis for establishment of a generic name : second, according 

 to observations over the years, emendations either are largely ignored 

 by other workers or their proposal stimulates long, drawn-out, often 

 inconclusive, public debate over the legitimacy or the exact form of the 

 change; third, as is pointed out in the late E. W. Brown's Composi- 

 tion of Scientific 'Words, 1956, the precise and correct formation of 

 any zoological name may be an extremely complex task, demanding 

 background training far beyond the experience of many, if not most, 

 of today's students of insect taxonomy. For the future, we believe 

 that a solution for this problem lies either in the acceptance of a generic 

 name as it first appears in print or in the establishment of a competent, 

 prepublication clearinghouse for such names by the International 

 Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, or by some other agency 

 located at a large center of work on zoological taxonomy. 



Except through incidental reference under individual genera, no 

 attempts are made to treat the classification of the coccids above the 

 genus level. Although this group of insects was long accepted as 

 representing a family in the general scheme of homopterous classifica- 

 tion, the usual approach in recent years has been to accept the group 

 as of superfamily standing, and Handlirsch (in Schroder, Handbuch 

 der Entomologie 3 : 1134, 1925) even presented the group as subordinal 

 in status, although he included only the one family, Coccidae. Various 

 proposals for suprageneric groupings of the numerous coccid genera 

 have been made since the publication of the Fernald Catalogue, 1903, 

 but they have not been wholly consistent, and do not permit the assign- 



