DESCRIPTION OE A DAPANOPTERA FROM AUSTRALIA — SKUSE. 107 
It is frequently asked “Why do you naturalists put long-winded 
Latin or Greek names to your specimens?” “Why not do so in 
plain English ? ” This is, however, not so easily complied with 
as may be imagined, and where done, it is in many cases, only 
calculated to mislead. Popular names are usually bestowed upon 
objects existing in nature by local consent and usage : that is 
by the folk inhabiting the particular district or region where the 
animals, plants, or whatever else they may be, exist; and these 
names convey to them, only, perhaps, an idea of what is meant. 
Professor Bell, a celebrated authority on British Crustacea, visiting 
a seaport town, enquired at a fishmonger’s stall, on which was a plate 
of crabs for sale, whether that particular kind of crabs was eaten 
in the locality? With great surprise at his apparent ignorance, the 
reply came, “They ben’t crabs, sir; them’s spiders /” But to 
come nearer home. What is ordinarily known in Sydney as the 
“lobster ” or “ crayfish ” is really a crawfish, recognised in science 
as Palinurus Huegeli and throughout the world as such. So that 
what is called a “ lobster ” by many people, will be known by 
the name of “crawfish” or “ crayfish ” by some, and maybe a 
dozen other local appellations by as many others to whom the 
identical animal may be familiar. But lobsters, crawfish, and 
crayfish are totally distinct from each other in structure and with 
different habits. And thus it is that mistakes happen in giving 
names to animals which to tiie popular eye exhibit a more or less 
fanciful resemblance ; but in many other case3 there is not the 
slightest likeness or even ‘affinity. What are commonly styled 
“ locusts ” in this country are really CicadcG, belonging to a 
totally distinct and widely separated order of insects. And, 
moreover, the same kind of Cicada is known by different names 
in different localities, such as “ Miller,” “ Mealy-back,” etc. The 
true locusts belong to the grasshoppers, whilst the Homopterous 
Cicadidcc have been known as “ Cicadas ” from times of remote 
antiquity. Instances such as these may be multiplied, but those 
cited should be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the 
adoption of local names for the purpose of general informa- 
tion. 
Popular names, if general, would be of great advantage in assist- 
ing to gain a scientific knowledge of the objects themselves, but 
they rarely can be said to assist specialists in their investigations 
for the public weal in this respect. And herein lies the secret. 
Specialists of all nationalities must compare notes as to the affinities 
and geographical distribution of the objects under investigation, in 
discussing their properties and utility. In order to attain this 
end, it is absolutely necessary to adopt an universal language as 
the medium for exchanging ideas before the result of their com- 
bined researches can eventually be made popularly intelligible in 
different languages. To this end Greek and Latin are employed. 
