on Generic Nomenclature. 317 



where the course was exceedingly clear, I think your readers 

 will, by this time, be inclined to think the case one of 

 "botheration," instead of exceeding clearness. Even Mr. 

 Mr. Shuckard, after "laboriously working" out the entire 

 group, and admitting that the original type of Pemphredon 

 was P. minutus, now tells his readers that he is prepared to 

 say that it most certainly is not that species. Notwithstand- 

 ing all Mr. Shuckard's laborious arguments, I maintain that 

 it is, and that my view of the subject, and my sketch of the 

 genera, are correct, and the only way which will insure 

 justice both to Latreille and Jurine. Mr. Shuckard's paper 

 gives me a new light upon the rights of authors, of which I 

 hope Mr. Hood will make due mention in his next article upon 

 copyright and copywrong, although I fear he will rank it as 

 an illustration of the latter principle. It is this : having 

 "laboriously worked" out a subject, an author obtains such 

 an entire right over the objects of his enquiry, that no future 

 author is to be permitted to approach them, but must have 

 the "civility" to allow the worked-out author to do so, 

 equipped in the new garb of the subsequent investigator. 



My views and arguments are before your readers, who will 

 balance them against Mr. Shuckard's. I shall, therefore, 

 content myself with investigating the six charges of inac- 

 curacy brought against me, and which w r ere contained in a 

 paragraph of twelve lines only ; " consequently, a very small 

 space to contain so many inaccuracies ! " 



1st. I have always admitted the troubled synonyme of 

 Psen pallipes ; but this cannot be called an inaccuracy of 

 mine, nor do I admit it as such. 



2d. The citation of one work before another is, in this 

 case, not of the least importance, the argument is not in the 

 least prejudiced, and the passage, as it stands, is as correct as 

 though I had said, " The genus Pemphredon was established 

 by Latreille in the Precis (1796); and in the Hist. Nat. 9 

 vol. iii. (1802), he states the mandibles to be unidentate, ex- 

 pressly referring in his Genera (1809) to the Pemphredon 

 minutus as constituting the type of Pemphredon in the 

 recis. 



3d. Latreille says, " Mandibules unidentees au cote in- 

 terne," by way of opposition to those genera which have them 

 toothed " au cote externe." If these are therefore left out of 

 the question (as they are in this case), the mandibles must be 

 said to be unidentate. How, by Latreille's description, the 

 mandibles can be transformed into bidentate mandibles, is 

 beyond my comprehension. If Mr. Shuckard had recollected 



aa 3 



