1929] 
Present Trends in Systematic Entomology 
17 
Another criticism of systematic entomology that comes 
from the morphologists is that we do not take their work 
sufficiently into account as a basis of classification, and some 
have even gone so far as to elaborate new classifications of 
their own. Their contention does not seem to be well founded 
and a canvass of the present situation in this regard seems 
to justify the statement that never before have taxonomists 
(with a few notable exceptions) been so keen in their treat- 
ment of characters for the limitation of higher groups and 
in attempting to indicate phylogenetic relationships. Only 
those who have labored thus to bring order out of chaos 
appreciate (to borrow a very self-satisfying political expres- 
sion) the “intricate complexity” of modern taxonomy, which 
by the way has the science of government skinned a mile 
when it comes to complexity. This very fact has developed 
another trend which is the continuous movement toward 
great specialization among taxonomists. Its necessity and 
advantages are obvious, but its drawbacks are very serious 
and unfortunately not always appreciated by the individual 
worker. There are at present really two types of specialists 
in taxonomy. One may be considered to include those who 
early acquired a general knowledge of insects and later 
settled upon some particular group to which they have 
devoted their energies. The other class includes those who 
have very early undertaken to specialize on a small group. 
The latter series is made up mainly of college students who 
have been assigned to taxonomic problem by some indulgent 
professor who hopes that he may rapidly impart to them 
the general familiarity with insects that he has acquired 
from long and tedious experience. Incidentally he knows 
that it will keep them busy. This method is not always 
entirely successful since it frequently develops such enthusi- 
asm that all other fields of general value to taxonomists 
may be neglected. This class of workers has been rapidly 
augmented during recent years by the great urge to enter 
early into productive research, a condition which prevails in 
all departments of biology alike. It is fostered by marked 
changes which are occurring in our colleges and univer- 
sities and particularly by the many luscious plums that are 
dangled before the noses of prospective research workers in 
the form of research endowments and fellowships. From the 
many temptations toward too early specialization systematic 
