Murray Wrobel
Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2001, 374 pp.
Price: $143.00, hard cover
ISBN: 0-444-50392-7

When I was invited to review this book, I thought I would have a difficult but satisfying task ahead. After all, giving this dictionary a close read and commenting upon its merits would be time-consuming and arduous, but I would have the expensive reference guide added to my bookshelf free of charge.

Alas, my task has been simple. This volume, in spite of its misleading title, is merely a list of about 5,000 scientific names and the corresponding common names in English, German, French, and Italian, where they are known. The names apply to insects occurring in parts of Europe and in the English-speaking world: North America, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Following the basic table of scientific and common names, there are indices to the English, German, French, and Italian common names.

This project would have benefited from the oversight of professional entomologists and editors. Wrobel is a compiler. He compiled Elsevier’s Dictionary of Plant Names (1996, with G. Creber), Elsevier’s Dictionary of Fungi and Fungal Plant Diseases (1998, with G. Creber), Elsevier’s Dictionary of Butterflies and Moths (2000), Elsevier’s Dictionary of Bird Names (2002), Elsevier’s Dictionary of Amphibians (2004), and, scheduled for publication in 2005, Elsevier’s Dictionary of Reptiles. According to his preface to the Dictionary of Entomology, this volume was designed as a companion to the Dictionary of Butterflies and Moths, compiled with the aim of giving an overview of the common names of insects other than butterflies and moths. However, no rationale is given for why these particular 4,947 species and higher categories were chosen as dictionary entries. I have the impression that they are simply the names Wrobel found in the references he happened upon. An effort was made to place genus and species names in orders and families; but, for no apparent reason, family group names are not placed in orders. According to Wrobel, the taxonomy is that used by the majority of sources consulted, rather than modern taxonomic classifications. Sources of the common names and species authors are not given.

The bibliography lists only 71 references, and many of these are of the nature guide or field guide ilk. The bibliographic entries are incomplete, giving only author and title and omitting publication date and publisher. The 1997 ESA common names list (Bosik, J. J. 1997. Common Names of Insects and Related Organisms 1997. Entomological Society of America, 232 pages.) was apparently not consulted. Many of its common names are not found in Wrobel’s Dictionary. There is a bibliographic entry with that title, but the authorship is credited to R. F. L. Mau et al. I have been unable to confirm the existence of such a book. The Canadian common names lists (Benoit, P. 1985. Nomenclatura Insectorum Canadensium. Centre de recherches forestières des Laurentide,. 5th ed.; and Benoit, P. 1975. Noms français d’insectes au Canada avec noms latins et anglais correspondants. Agriculture Québec.) were not consulted, and neither was Borror, Triplehorn, and Johnson’s An Introduction to the Study of Insects.

I checked Wrobel’s Dictionary for the names of a few species that I am familiar with. Solenopsis invicta is listed as the fire ant or deadly fire ant. There is no mention of the red imported fire ant. The entry for Blatella germanica, besides being out of alphabetical order, gives chinch bug as the first English common name. We also find that it has been called the Croton bug, shiner, or steamfly, something we could not learn from the ESA common names list. Blissus leucopterus is also called the chinch bug, and Wrobel places it in the family Pyrrhocoridae rather than Lygaeidae or Blissidae. Pthirus pubis, the crab louse, is not mentioned. Sepedomerus macropus is misspelled Sepedometus macropus; it is correctly placed in the order Diptera, family Sciomyzidae, and it is given the English common name liverfluke snail predator-fly; but we are not told who invented this common name.

Elsevier’s Dictionary of Entomology suffers severely from lack of a geographic focus, lack of defined purpose, lack of professional oversight, and lack of good editorship. A title reflecting the true content of the book would be appropriate, something like English, German, French and Italian Common Names for Some Insects of Europe and the English-Speaking World. However, the volume is not totally without merit; we can learn the meaning of some common names that are not found in our standard approved lists. The book should be of some value to translators. However, the high production quality, good paper, fine binding, and astronomical cost are not justified by the content.

Jeffrey K. Barnes
The Arthropod Museum
319 Agriculture Building
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, AR 72701
American Entomologist
Vol. 50, No.4, Winter 2004