20 
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY 
[Vol. 17 
The rules and usages that have been followed in preparing this list were outlined 
in the last report of this Committee (Jnl. Econ. Ent. Vol. 16, No. l. f p. 21-23). 
One of the greatest difficulties encountered in this work was the defining of a group 
name. You will recall that the fourth of the rules adopted at the last meeting of 
the Association as a guide in forming names, bears reference to compounding words 
in making group names, with particular reference to the use of the hyphen and 
“run-together,” inasmuch as a group of insects can be based on almost any ground 
and it would not be in keeping with the Committee’s conception of what constitutes 
a common name to adhere to an academic classification. This Committee has 
arbitrarily accepted certain terms as being group terms, for example, tent-caterpillar 
(hyphenated), leaf-miner (hyphenated), sawfly (run together), and treehopper (run- 
together), while on the other hand it has rejected other combinations which it believes 
are not as well defined as groups, for example, red scale, peach scale, root borer, etc. 
It is evident that these could be considered as groups and it is quite impossible to 
eliminate the personal factor in decisions of this kind. 
This Committee recommends that the word “common” used as an adjective to 
designate a specific insect be discouraged. The term is extremely ambiguous, it 
might mean the insect most broadly distributed and it might mean the insect most 
numerous at any given place. Moreover, an instct which is common at one time is 
not necessarily common at another time. The common potato beetle at one time in 
this country was a blister-beetle, at present it is a Chrysomelid. Again, an insect 
may be common in one place and not common in another, for example; the common 
cucumber-beetle of the Eastern States is not the common cucumber-beetle of Cali¬ 
fornia. The Committee suggests that, in many cases, the idea intended to be con¬ 
veyed by the word “common” is better expressed by the word “ordinary” inasmuch 
as this word does not necessarily signify immediate numerical superiority and conveys 
more the idea that it is a species most generally and longest known. It would be 
perfectly logical to say that the “ordinary cucumber-beetle” was not the “common 
cucumber-beetle” of California while it would be quite paradoxical to say that the 
“common cucumber-beetle” was not the “common cucumber-beetle” of California. 
This Committee does not feel justified at this time in submitting a list of 1,000 
new names for adoption inasmuch as this would have necessitated arbitrary fixing 
names on many insects which do not at present attract enough general attention to 
warrant the Association recognizing them officially. 
It is suggested that the Association urge its members to forward all new and 
unapproved names, intended to be used in publication, to the Committee on Common 
Names for opinion before using. 
It is the recommendation of this Committee that its successors add to this list as 
rapidly as thorough investigation of the names involved will permit, and we further 
recommend that a complete list of names adopted by the Association, including the 
changes suggested in this report and the additional names herewith suggested for 
adoption to be printed in the Journal of Economic Entomology and also issued 
as a separate. Respectfully submitted, 
Edith M. Patch A. N. Caudell 
Z. P. Metcalf J. A. Hyslop 
Arthur Gibson S. A. Rohwer 
A. C. Baker " Committee 
