420 
Analyses of Boohs, 
[July, 
Guide to Practical Work in Elementary Entomology. An Out- 
line for the Use of Students in the Entomological Labora- 
tory of Cornell University. By Prof. J. Henry Comstock. 
Ithaca, New York : University Press. 
The principal objedt of this little work is one with which we 
thoroughly sympathise. As a preliminary the author, however, 
discusses the need of what he calls a more “ exadt ” nomencla- 
ture. It seems to him that “ the use of the terms upper, lower, 
inner, outer, before, behind, anterior, posterior, and similar ex- 
pressions in the technical descriptions of animals and their parts, 
has led to much ambiguity.” A great part of this alleged con- 
fusion he ascribes to the fadt that “ very many of the early 
naturalists were physicians, and they attempted, in their descrip- 
tions of the lower animals, to avail themselves of the same terms 
that were in use in human anatomy. But as the natural position 
of man differs from that of the lower animals in being eredl, 
these terms have in one case a different signification from what 
they do [have] in the other.” We must here remark that we 
have never known a single case of ambiguity arising from this 
circumstance, nor do we even think it possible. Hence we can 
see no reason for the “ improvements ” in nomenclature which 
Professor Comstock is anxious to introduce. He quotes the 
didtum of Profs. Wilder and Gage, that biological nomenclature 
should include “ only such terms as are brief, simple, exadt, sig- 
nificant, of classical origin, and capable of infledtion.” The 
importance of brevity, simplicity, and exactitude we fully recog- 
nise ; but to “ classical origin ” we demur, as being fatal to 
brevity and simplicity, and in many cases to significance. Of its 
sins against brevity no better instance can be taken than “ perisso- 
dadtylate ” used instead of the plain English term “ odd-toed.” 
The days are gone by when every student of the natural sciences 
was a classical scholar. We have now, especially in Entomology, 
numbers of observers utterly unacquainted with Greek and Latin, 
and for their sake we demand the minimisation of classical 
terminology. Indeed, save as far as the names of species are 
concerned, there is little to be said for the Greek and Latin terms 
with which the sciences are flooded. International they cannot 
be called ; the Germans, and still more the Dutch, use a tech- 
nical language mainly of native origin, and intelligible to the 
people. The French use, indeed, words of classical derivation, 
but often so distorted that their meaning is by no means readily 
apparent. Why, then, should the English-speaking nations 
persevere in multiplying pseudo-classical terms ? It seems to us 
grossly inconsistent to applaud, on the one hand, the foundation 
of colleges where the natural sciences only are to be taught 
without classical learning, and at the same time to teach the very 
same sciences in language which only the classical scholar can 
