On Generic Nomenclature, 171 



genus by Mr. Curtis), as examples of what appeared to me to 

 be an improper mode of treating the generic names of such 

 groups. In order to show this, 1 first investigated the history 

 of the old genus Pemphredon, proving that, at its first esta- 

 blishment, its characters were those of P. minutus; which, 

 indeed, Latreille, in his Genera Crnstaceorum, &c, actually 

 stated to be the type ; and, in the second place, I noticed the 

 injudicious plan adopted in such cases by Dr. Leach ; its 

 rejection by Mr. Curtis, who had, nevertheless, employed the 

 name of Pemphredon for the typical Cemoni of Jurine, and 

 had given a new name (Diodontus) to the typical Pemphr£- 

 dones. 



By the recent publication of the P. lugubris, &c. (or the 

 typical Cemoni), under the name of Pemphredon, Mr. Curtis 

 evidently retains his former opinion ; and Mr. Shuckard, in his 

 Essay on Fossorial Hymenoptera, states, in his observations on 

 the genus Pemphredon, that "Mr. Curtis is certainly right;" 

 and that I have " introduced confusion, by a string of inac- 

 curacies, where the course was exceedingly clear ; " giving, 

 also, a history of the genus, which corroborates mine (which 

 was confined to ascertaining the original type of the genus) 

 in every respect ; omitting to point out a single inaccurac}' of 

 mine * ; omitting, also, the description of Pemphredon given 

 in the third volume of the Histoire Naturelle, which is that of 

 P. minutus ; not attempting to invalidate my principle, but 

 giving a detailed, but partial, account of the treatment of the 

 genus by Latreille, who subsequently changed his mind and 

 his typical species together ; did injustice to Jurine, violated 

 the rules of generic nomenclature, and proved the incorrect- 

 ness of his views relative to these groups, by uniting the 

 original Pemphredon and Jurine's Stigmus into one genus. 

 But Mr. Shuckard says that he " necessarily followed " 

 Latreille' s subsequent views ; and it is by showing the nature 

 of these subsequent views, that Mr. Shuckard's history and 

 mine seem to disagree. But this leads to another practical 

 question : whether an author, having named and characterised 

 a genus, is at liberty to remodify it at a future time? and, if 

 so, upon what conditions ? And, I think, no one will deny that, 

 if there be not good objections to such a step, an author has a 

 right to modify his creations according to his more matured 

 views. But I contend that, in this case, there were good grounds 

 for opposing the alterations subsequently proposed by Latreille. 

 Pemphredon, as originally, and again characterised, was a good 



* I have sought for these inaccuracies in vain, with the exception of a 

 troubled synonyme, concerning Psen pallipes of Panzer, which does not 

 in the least degree bear upon the question. 



o 2 



