THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCER. 
15 
species, as there are many such lists of 
genera, the operation could have been 
performed not only without any very 
great expenditure of time, but — what 
should be taken into account — without 
any loss of temper. 
Is it not strange, sir, that while ento- 
mologists invariably speak of their cap- 
tures under their specific, carefully ig- 
noring their generic names, yet are the 
indices, I believe, almost without excep- 
tion, drawn up so as to afford ready 
reference to the genus, while there is no 
alphabetically arranged table of species. 
I propose to supply this defect, provided 
the plan has your countenance and that 
of your numerous readers, e. g . — 
No. in No. in No. in 
Species. Genus. Double- the Wood's 
day. Manual. Index. 
Parva . Micra . 734 * * 
Promissa Catocala 757 492 442 
We thus are able at a glance to 
see — 
1. Where Douhleday places the insect. 
2. How Stainton describes it. 
3. How Wood has painted it. 
This proposed Index might he pub- 
lished at the cost of a very few shillings. 
Douhleday’s List, minus the synonyms, 
and duly numbered, should form a part. 
Should this proposal find favour with 
yourself and readers, will you kindly aid 
the effort by receiving names of sub- 
scribers ? 
Yours, &c., 
Claudius. 
SPECIFIC NAMES. 
To the Editor of the 'Intelligencer: 
Sir, — About fifteen years ago M. Amyot, 
a celebrated French entomologist, gave 
to the world a revelation of the “ Systeme 
Mononymique,” whereby entomologists 
were thenceforth to give to an insect only 
one name instead of two, as Linnaeus had 
done, and all the Hemiptera were named 
afresh in accordance with the new theory. 
It was set forth how delightful it would 
be to abbreviate entomological nomen- 
clature by one half, and it was shown 
that there could be no lack of proper 
names so long as any language under 
heaven remained unappropriated to this 
service. Nevertheless, with all these ad- 
vantages, the system has not made con- 
verts ; the shades of the old heroes do 
not shiver with disgust at the application 
of their names to the descendants of the 
vermin that once annoyed them, and 
M. Amyot’s names are set aside for the 
older ones, or, in the case of his new 
species, the name of the genus is pre- 
fixed. The reason is obvious, for to give 
an insect only one name is to isolate it, 
and deprive us of any idea of its rela- 
tionship ; it is as if we called a man 
“John,” without adding “Brown,” 
“ Jones ” or “ Robinson,’’ to show who 
are his kindred. 
T hope that the promised “ List of 
Hemiptera” is not to be on the mono- 
nymic plan, or we shall be reading of 
such things as Picia being taken by 
hundreds, and who will know that Acan- 
tkosoma picia, Newman, was the insect 
intended ? There is quite enough of 
this slovenly fashion now in use by the 
Lepidopterists, who either write the spe- 
cific name only, or put a letter before it 
instead of the genus, leaving the reader 
to guess what the abbreviation stands 
for. Bad as this is in a list of names 
following the arrangement of some pub- 
lished catalogue, it is perfectly bewilder- 
ing when used for a few selected species 
only. It, however, springs naturally from 
