#60 ZOOLOGY INSECTS. 



arrangement. It is clear that if we follow the diagnoses of these genera 

 as given by him, all of our Calopteni will have to be removed to other 

 genera. C. femnr-rubrum is placed in Pezotettix under the subgeiins 

 Melanoplus, and, as a matter of course, must carry with it C. spretus, and 

 other closely allied and congeneric species. Stal is undoubtedly correct in 

 subdividing Serville's genus, as that author, in his Histoire des orthopteres, 

 recognizes two quite distinct groups. But the question arises here as to which 

 subdivision the name should be applied. The genus was formed by the 

 author, and lirst used by him in his Revue methodique des ortliopteres (1831) 

 for the reception of tliree species, C. italicus, morio, and sanguinipes. It is true 

 that afterward (1839), in his Histoire des ortliopteres, Serville removed C. 

 morio to 2Edipoda, as it was in fact no Acridian, and had been previously 

 named by Creutz (Entom. Versch.); also that he returned C. sanguinipes to 

 Acridium, thus leaving C. italicus as the only original representative of his 

 genus. But, in the mean time, Burmeister* changes the name to Caloptenus, 

 and includes in the genus, as limited and understood by him, not only italicus, 

 but also the American species femur-rubrum, fcmoratus, and bivittatus, besides 

 a number of other exotic species. If Serville's name was erroneous, then 

 Burmeister was as fully authorized to correct it as Dr. Stal, and it comes 

 from the hand of either really a new genus. But not only this : Serville 

 includes three species which are incongruous, each of which had been pre- 

 viously named, and two of which he afterward, in his Histoire des ortliopteres, 

 removes. Stal speaks of this contention -in regard to priority as puerile 

 and derogatory to science ; yet he clings to the name given by Serville, 

 although it is erroneous and has to be emended, making C. italicus the type. 

 Under these circumstances, and following out the spirit of his own 

 advice, as given in his introductory remarks, I shall not follow him in this 

 respect, because I do not think even the sti'ictest construction of the law of 

 priority requires it, and because to do so would inflict upon our nomencla- 

 ture a host of synonyms which can be avoided by retaining the name 

 Caloptenus, as given by Burmeister. Some of the species may have to be 

 removed to other genera. It is true that the peculiar characters selected 



* I am aware that some doubt as to priority in date of the Handbiich rfer Entomologle and llistoire 

 des orlhoptircK has recently beeu expressed ; but NO long as it is generally conceded to the former, nnr 

 conclusions iu regard to nomenclature must be based upou that assumption. 



