Taxonomy and nomenclature cannot be separated. Taxonomic results can be expressed only through nomenclature, and therefore the system of nomenclature in use at any time constitutes a framework within which taxonomists must work. The existing system of zoological nomenclature cannot function simultaneously for traditional methods and for the quantitative methods that will be necessary in the near future. The rigid framework of a mandatory Code, and in particular its type-system are incompatible with quantitative methods based on a long series of specimens. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should plan for a date, not too far ahead, after which all traditional taxonomy shall cease at the species-level and below. The Commission should give a lead in exploring the problems and possibilities of quantitative methods, and in devising an entirely new nomenclature appropriate to these. Above the species-level, traditional methods should continue, but the Code should cease to be mandatory, and names should be stabilised by usage. Every practising taxonomist must sometime stop and wonder what his successors will be doing a century hence. The procedure for giving a name to a newly discovered species of animal today is still substantially that followed by Linnaeus in his Systema Naturae, Ed. X (1758), though the outlook of the taxonomist and his purpose in making the description have changed considerably. For how long can this 200year old method continue? Are the methods which Linnaeus devised to systematize a small range of divinely-created forms the best way of handling a world population of insects vastly greater than Linnaeus envisaged, and itself reacting to a rapidly changing physical environment? Insect Taxonomy Today Insect taxonomy is intimately linked with insect nomenclature, and neither is possible without the other. In spite of many opinions to the contrary, is not possible to talk about taxonomy without also talking about nomenclature, and so the scheme of nomenclature in general use inevitably determines the framework within which taxonomic work must be presented. The preface to the current International Code of Zoological Nomenclature states that: c. . . the Code refrains from impinging upon taxonomic judgment, which must not be made subject to regulation or restraint. Harmony with taxonomy, however the latter fluctuates, is secured by the of .... This last sentence is an understatement. The device of types does more than secure harmony between nomenclature and taxonomy; it effectively dictates the kind of taxonomy that is possible under the Code, and it is therefore a good startingpoint from which to study the taxonomic practice of the present day.