July, 1842.] l^J 



In continuation of my observations on the use of the same name for different 

 genera, I would remark that it is possible, in many instances, to vary the later 

 one so slightly, that it would be essentially the same; and, to prevent confusion, 

 the name of the author who instituted the genus, might be cited for it.* These 

 variations might take place either in the orthography, in the gender, or by a 

 diminitive. Linnams himself has set us an example, in applying such names as 

 Picus and Pica to distinct genera of birds. 



But in making changes of this kind, it is very necessary to be careful that great 

 confusion be not the result. Thus, Bonaparte has proposed ' Pogonathus, Bon." 

 in place of" Pogonias, Cuv." because the latter is applied to a genus of birds. Yet 

 if we turn to the Regne Animal, we will find " Pogonias' Lacep." We do not, 

 however, find Pogonias in Lacepede, the name being Pogonathus. 



I propose Ancyllus and Teronyx, instead of Ancylus and Trionyx, for genera of 

 Hymenoptera. 



Conoura, Eucryptus and Auchenella, instead of Conurus, Cryptus, (Hal.) and 

 Auchenia, for genera of insects. 



Clypastrsea and Strong ulus, instead of Clypeaster and Strongylus, for coleopte- 

 rous genera. 



Cymindus, instead of Cymindis, for a genus of birds; and Labeola instead of 

 Labeo, for a genus of insects. There are many other names employed for dis- 

 tinct genera ; thus Chione, Venilia, Cleodora, Pandora, Hyria and Lucina, are 

 common to conchology and entomology ; Sylvia and Tanagra to the latter and 

 ornithology ; and Labeo and Zytena to entomology and ichthyology. 



The following " Note on the Natural Alliances of the genus 

 Cecidomyia, intended to facilitate identification ;" was read by 

 Dr. B. H. Coates, and referred to a committee, viz. : Dr. 

 McMurtrie, Dr. Pickering, and Mr. Haldeman ; who reported 

 it for publication in the Proceedings of the Academy. 



Nothing new is professed to be furnished by the present paragraphs. They are 

 compiled from sources not difficult of access among the liberal collections of this 

 city ; but it has been hoped that some utility could be derived from preserving and 

 more widely diffusing a memorandum of the^alliances of this destructive family of 

 insects, so as to increase the number and practicability of observations on the part 

 of those favourably situated for that purpose. 



The old Linnean genus, Tipula, is, I believe, a natural one. It is, at all events, 

 one of a striking appearance. A delicate, lightly framed, two winged fly, of a 

 form much resembling the moschito, frequently capable of resting and dancing on 

 running streams of water, so as to attract popular attention by the circumstance, 

 and at the same time unable to inflict severe and penetrating wounds on the bodies 

 of warm-blooded animals, from the feebleness of its proboscis. This organ would 

 seem, in general, only fitted for sucking up uncovered or but slightly covered fluids ; 

 and contains, to use the language of one of the best authorities, only a pair of lan- 

 cets ; being, in this respect, very deficient when compared with the allied family, 

 Culicida;. The antennae, with the exception of a single sub-family, are thread- 

 shaped. The perfect insect shows but little avidity for food. 



Five natural groups seem to arise; in each of which the appearance of the per- 



* Cuvier writes " Machoera, Lacep." but this genus stands Makaira, in 

 Lacepede's work, and it is the more necessary to retain the original orthography, 

 as Machcerahas been recently applied to a genus of Mollusca. 



IV 







