Part 1

Produced by Jon Richfield

EXPLANATION OF TERMS USED IN ENTOMOLOGY

PREPARED BY JOHN B. SMITH, Sc.D. Professor of Entomology in Rutgers College, &c.

PUBLISHED BY THE BROOKLYN ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY BROOKLYN, N. Y. 1906

PRESS OF THE NEW ERA PRINTING COMPANY LANCASTER, PA.

{Scanner's note: This book is about a century old at the time of scanning. I found it in the discard pile of a local university library. I find the book to be of exceptional historical interest in the insights it gives into the development of early modern entomological science. It also is of practical value as a source for terms that are obscure to modern users because they are no longer current.

I have edited the text as well as I could and I think it is by now very usable, but do treat any really suspicious looking passages with reserve. I have avoided the use of non-alphabetic symbols as far as I could, for example Greek letters and male, female and hermaphroditic symbols, but if you encounter difficulties you might find the problem there. Also, the colour table at the end is not really much good for anything beyond general impressions; not only are the paper and ink old, but between my scanner and your screen or printer, there is room for too much misinterpretation of precise colour, for anyone to take it seriously.

In any case, enjoy. The book is a valuable product of serious workers in an age of exploration.}

FOREWORD.

When, some time since, in consequence of continuing demands, the Brooklyn Entomological Society resolved to publish a new edition of its Explanation of Terms used in Entomology, and entrusted the writer and two associates with the task of preparing the same, it was believed that a little revision of definitions, the dropping of a few obsolete terms and the addition of a few lately proposed, would be all that was necessary. It was to be a light task to fill idle time in summer, report to be made in fall. Two years have passed since that time; the associates have dropped by the way; the manuscript contains five times the number of terms in the original "Explanation." and if it is published now, it is not because I believe it to be complete; but because I do not believe it can be made complete except as the result of criticism and voluntary addition by specialists throughout the country.

It is twenty-six years since the original list was published and nothing can better illustrate the advances made than a comparison between the old and the new Glossary. No one realizes better than I the fact that as students have increased in each order, each has followed an independent line of research, absolutely without regard to the work done elsewhere. In consequence, we have several terms for the same thing in many cases and, in an equal number, several meanings to the same term. As no one man can now-a-days cover the entire field of Entomology, it goes without saying that I was compelled to rely partly upon books and partly upon the good nature of correspondents to make the work even approximately complete.

The first notable contribution came from Professor Justus W. Folsom, of Urbana, Illinois, who sent me over 2000 cards of terms collected by himself and his assistants, and these added materially at the beginning of the work. A number of correspondents were good enough to send in lists of terms in Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Orthoptera, Hemiptera and Neuroptera, and to refer me to literature where explanations of other special terms could be found.

After the cards were so far advanced as to warrant a preliminary manuscript, Dr. Philip P. Calvert of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Nathan Banks of Washington, D.C., and Mr. C. W. Johnson of the Boston Society of Natural History went carefully over the entire work and by their criticisms and additions contributed materially to such merit as it possesses. To these gentlemen and to the many others not specifically mentioned I give thanks for their assistance, and if there have not been more co-workers it has been only because of the time element that seems to demand the best that is ready, rather than a delay to secure perfection.

It would be interesting to go at length into the history of the correspondence to determine what sort of terms should or should not be included and to bring out the hopeless divergencies existing; but all that is important here is to state briefly what has been included and what omitted.

Common English terms even if descriptive, when used in their ordinary dictionary sense, have not been included as a rule; but this is subject to many exceptions. Latin terms and derivatives, even if used in their usual sense have been generally included; but compounds made up of adequately defined descriptive terms are generally omitted. Adverbial or adjective forms have been omitted whenever it has been considered safe, and so have terms prefixed by sub-, supra- and the like, indicating degree or position. In doubtful cases the terms have been included and defined. All terms of venation are, so far as possible, reduced to the Comstock system which is the only one that has been satisfactorily worked out for all orders, and a series of figures is added to explain this system so far as seems necessary. It has not been considered feasible to determine the proper use of terms applied differently in different orders or families; that is scarcely within the scope of a work of this kind.

Terms used in embryological and histological study have been included only so far as seemed necessary to an understanding of the general works, and no attempt has been made to cover the terms applied to musculature and other details of microscopic structure: this has seemed rather to be outside of the scope of the present essay.

All color terms are reduced so far as possible to terms of the Windsor and Newton system of water colors which are standard in the English-speaking world, and the color plate shows solid blocks of those colors that seem necessary to explain all modifications except metallics, blacks and whites. {Scanner's note: color plate may be excluded, partly because it is in poor condition.}

The figures illustrating body structures and other details have been drawn under my supervision by Mr. John A. Grossbeck, and are meant to be guides merely - else the glossary would exceed its scope.

In the admission that the work is incomplete, no apology is intended for its publication; it is merely a statement of fact to encourage constructive rather than destructive criticism. It is hoped that those who note errors or omissions will communicate them to the writer so that when another edition is needed, as it will be before many years are past, a standard work may be possible.

JOHN B. SMITH, Sc.D.

New Brunswick, N.J. April 1906

EXPLANATORY.

Definitions of general application are as a rule given first, where more than one is necessary; next those of limited use, and finally the specific meaning in each order in which there is any notable difference.

Where a word has more than one ending, the difference is given after a hyphen which represents the stem word: e.g. ametabola -ous; the latter in place of ametabolous, which indicates the possession of the characters peculiar to the ametabola. Where there is an English and a Latin ending, the former is usually given with the word and the other is added: e.g. aequilate -us, instead of aequilatus, there being no difference in the application. Usually the singular form of the word is first given, and the plural ending is added; e.g.

antenna -ae,

cenchrus -ri,

desideratum -ata;

but occasionally, when the plural is more commonly used, e.g. epimera -eron, this is reversed and the singular ending is added: when the two are different in form, e.g. foot and feet, the words are given separately, and so when there is a difference in the application, as in