26 
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 
tawny orange on the sides, and banded with bright yellow upon the edge of the second ring of the 
hind-body. The thorax and shoulder-covers, and the fourth ring of the hind-body, are more faintly 
edged with yellow, or with tawny orange. The feelers, antennae beneath, and legs are also orange- 
colored; the fore-wings are dusky; the hind-wings transparent, but varied and edged with black. The 
female has a little orange-colored tuft on each side of the tail, and the males have two tufts on each 
side, the middle pair longer than the others. The males are more numerous, more active, and smaller 
than the females; they measure from 0.50 to 0.60 inch in length, and their wings expand from 1 inch 
to 1.15 inch. The body of the female varies from 0.60 to 0.90 inch in length, and her wings expand from 
1 inch to 1.50 inch.” 
The curious reader, who has noticed just now that I said that the Grape-root Borer 
was briefly referred to by Dr. Fitch, will perhaps be astonished, on referring to that gen¬ 
tleman’s New York Reports , to find that no such insect as YEgeria polistiforrnis is to be 
met with, in any of the three indexes attached to the three volumes of those Reports . 
It may perhaps be worth while to explain this little scientific mystery. After the term 
“ AEgeria ” had been applied by the European entomologist Fabricius in the year 1S07 
to the genus of insects, to which both the Peach Borer, the Squash-vine Borer, and the 
Grape-root Borer belong, and had been universally current in the scientific world for 
half a century thereafter, some indefatigable genius, rummaging among old books, dis¬ 
covered that another European entomologist, Scopoli, had given the name of “ Trocliil- 
ium” to the same group of insects in the year 1777, or 80 years before Fabricius’s name, 
was published. Hence, according to what is called “ the law of priority,” the name 
“ Trochilium” has now very generally taken the place of the name “AEgeria;” and 
the very same insect which in 1854 Dr. Harris designated as JEgeria polistiformis was 
in 1856 designated by Dr. Fitch as Trochilium polistiforme. If the rules of nomencla¬ 
ture, promulgated long ago by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 
had been regarded in this case, the term “ Algeria,” having been once universally 
adopted, would never have been changed. But unfortunately these rules have been too 
generally neglected, and the “ law of priority ” has been for many years back enforced 
with the utmost rigor in the scientific world. Hence scientific phraseology is in a per¬ 
petual state of flux, chopping and changing about from year to year, as often as some 
obscure writer, whose writings perhaps are not worth one cent, but who had the good 
fortune to be born before his betters, is discovered to have named a genus or a species 
before the author of the current name published that name in the scientific world. The 
inevitable consequence is, that a great deal of valuable time, that might be usefully 
expended in studying out scientific Jacts, is frittered away in studying out scientific 
phrases ; and an entomologist, who would keep up with the age, lias to be perpet¬ 
ually altering the names in his cabinet, without himself gaining thereby one single new 
idea, or adding one iota to the general fund of scientific knowledge. To my mind, the 
naturalist who rakes up out of the dust of old libraries some long-forgotten name, and 
demands that it shall take the place of a name of universal acceptance, ought to be 
indicted before the High Court of Science as a public nuisance, and on conviction sent 
to a Scientific Penitentiary, and fed there for the whole remaining term of his scientific 
life upon a diet of chinch bugs and formic acid.* 
*On this vexed question Dr. Schaum has the following excellent remarks: — “I am much opposed to 
the adoption of these obsolete names, which Mr. Dawson has substituted for the well-known and gener¬ 
ally adopted appellations, in right of priority. * * If we cultivate Entomology for the sake of 
knowledge, and not for the sake of nomenclature, I can see no benefit arising from an enquiry into the 
data of the synonyms compiled (and very often erroneously compiled) by Schoenherr, but on the contrary 
