Rules for Entomological Nomenclature. 6 



name being generically reserved for that particular species, which, from 

 being placed at the head of his genus, we are led to suppose was con- 

 sidered by its founder as the species more especially possessing the generic 

 characters of the group ;* indeed, in the works of Fabricius we invariably 

 find a certain species selected, from which the characters are drawn, and 

 in this case we are left without doubt as to the type of the genus. This is, 

 however, a circumstance too often overlooked by modern authors. 



At the period above referred to, it also not unfrequently occurred (as we 

 shall see below) that an author, unacquainted with the works of his contem- 

 poraries, gave to some particular group, incorrectly supposed by him to be 

 unnamed and uncharacterized, a generic name, in many instances derived 

 from some peculiarity in the insect which he considered as the type, (add- 

 ing at the same time to his genus other, and perhaps very distinct insects, 

 rather than form them into new genera,) when, however, unfortunately 

 for him, those very insects which he had regarded as the types of his 

 new genus, had previously received from some other Entomologist a 

 different generic name. Now in such a case it is quite clear that the 

 second name must sink into a synonym. It has, indeed, been said that 

 it ought to be retained, and that the insects placed by the author of the 

 second generic name at the end of his genus, although completely disagree- 

 ing with the characters of the type, (from which type perhaps the second 

 generic name was derived,) ought to be considered as entitled to such 

 second generic name. This doctrine, however, in such cases is certainly 

 not maintainablef , not even though the insects placed at the end of the 

 genus by the second author may partially agree with his typical species* 



* Fabricius, in his Philosophia Entomologica (p. 114) lays down the follow- 

 ing rule, " Si genus receptunx secundum leges naturae et artis, in plura diri- 

 matur, turn nomen antea commune vulgatissimo insecto manebit." I do not know 

 any method so likely to create confusion and uncertainty as that contained in 

 the above rule, since it is next to impossible that every Entomologist would select 

 the same particular insect, and consider it as the most common in the family to 

 which it belongs. Indeed Fabricius himself seems to have wished to inculcate 

 this uncertainty, since, in p. 118 of the same book, he observes, "Locus et 

 tempus insecti sunt maxime accidentalia." 



t " Nomen genericum unius generis, nisi supervacanetim, in aliud transferrl 

 baud debet." Fab., Phil. Ent. p. 113. 



