1929] 
Present Trends in Systematic Entomology 
21 
PRESENT TRENDS IN SYSTEMATIC ENTOMOLOGY. 
SCIENTIFIC NAMES . 1 
By Wm. T. M. Forbes 
Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 
Of the several millions of kinds of plants and animals in 
the world, there are some hundreds that any one of us may 
wish casually to refer to. These have received “common’' 
names and if they alone existed, scientific names would be 
unnecessary. My present concern is only with the remaining 
millions. How shall we tag each one of those millions so that 
on the rare occasion when one of us must mention it to an- 
other we can make ourselves understood? 
In ancient times the problem was hardly visualized. The 
hundreds received each a name. Any other creature was a 
“creeping thing after his kind.” In the next stage, the idea 
“his kind” was represented in some way and we have the 
beginning of our scientific scheme. At this stage we have a 
name — a group name — that any one can understand, and 
the distinguishing word or words that mark a single mem- 
ber of that group: — a butterfly, “Papilio” and that brown 
butterfly, “Papilio fuscus,” or the particular brown one with 
eyespots, “Papilio fuscus ocellatus .” 2 
Linnaeus began with this plan, which had grown up grad- 
ually, and took a step further. Instead of a series of adjec- 
tives he chose — arbitrarily — one single word to designate 
a particular kind of butterfly. He did it casually, it was just 
a convenient tag, — a nomen triviale. And with this step the 
present cycle begins. That “trivial name” was so convenient 
that it overshadows our whole system of names. The oldest 
name (the common name) was known to all and needed no 
rules ; the second type was descriptive, at least in rudiment, 
and took care of itself, but the new “trivial” kind was 
arbitrary ; it carried no meaning in itself, but only by agree- 
ment ; so it was necessary to find a basis of agreement. 
!See footnot.e on page 11 of this issue. 
2 My examples are imaginary. 
