ZOOLOGY OF SOUTH AFRICA. 39 



ra, TJtalerophaga, 6, Family, Cetoniidae." Again, the mode 

 in which the genera, sub-genera, sections, and sub-sections 

 are treated, appears to us sufficient to prove the necessity for 

 the adoption of some other plan than that now proposed by 

 Mr. MacLeay. For instance, after characterising the family, 

 and asserting that it contains more than 600 species, — having 

 previously remarked that with the exception perhaps of Cen- 

 tral Africa, the world contains of Cetoniidce few species un- 

 known, at least in comparison with those which are known, 

 — we are favored with an account of the five genera, and of 

 the sub-genera, sections, and sub-sections known to the writ- 

 er. As there are five sub-genera in each genus, and so on, 

 the family will, according to Mr. MacLeay's views, naturally 

 comprise 25 subgenera, " 125 sections, and 625 subsections." 

 (p. 51) : but although the group is so well marked, the insects 

 of such large and conspicuous size, and the number so great 

 as to lead to the idea that the greater part are known; — Mr. 

 MacLeay has only been able to make out 47 sub-sections out 

 of the 625, exclusive of the sections which are not cut up in- 

 to sub-sections ; and even of the sections, of which there 

 ought to be 125, he has only filled up 40, exclusive of those 

 sub-genera which are not cut up into sections. 



A plan is here also adopted which appears to us to set the 

 rules of zoological nomenclature entirely at defiance. All ge- 

 neric names are made to terminate in inus; and thus we have 

 Trichinus, Cetoninus, &c, instead of Trichius, Cetonia, &c. 

 This may or may not be an improvement, according to the 

 views of different readers ; but when we find the name of 

 Fabricius tacked to Trichinus, or that of Kirby to Gymneti- 

 nus, we cannot but object to the innovation. The five gene- 

 ra into which Mr. MacLeay divides the family are Trichinus, 

 Cetoninus, Gymnetinus, Macrominus, and Cryptodinus. — 

 But it is evident, on a very slight examination of an exten- 

 sive series of these insects, that these five groups are not 

 of equal rank ; for instance, Cetoninus and Macrominus 

 have characters much weaker than those of Trichinus or 

 Cryptodinus. Again, whilst we doubt the propriety of re- 

 garding Cryptodus as belonging to the family, we are asto- 

 nished to find it sunk into a sub-genus, and regarded as only 

 of equal rank with each of the four subgenera of Cremasto- 

 cheilus. Platygenia in like manner is of far higher rank than 

 Osmoderma, although regarded only as a sub-genus of Tri- 

 chinus; whilst the giant Goliathi are sunk into a sub-genus 

 of Cetonia. 



We may be told that by considering them in the light in 

 which they are exhibited to us by Mr. MacLeay, they clearly 



