OF WASHINGTON, VOLUME XVIII, 1916 117 



very extensive study of a series of specimens from each of a large 

 number of localities well distributed throughout its entire range. 



The adoption of the recent generic combinations will be quite 

 confusing at first and to aid American students who may have to 

 use these names, a list of the species in their new form is appended. 

 One generic name at least is improperly applied in Spaeth's 

 catalogue and must be used in a different sense. Deloyala Red- 

 tenbacher 1858 (a subgenus of Cassida) is preoccupied by Chevro- 

 lat 1834 (Dejean Cat., p. 371 and "3rd ed." 1837, p. 395) who 

 prepared the Chrysomelidae in the Dejean Catalogue and the 

 species listed under this name in the earlier work include the 

 names since designated as the types of at least three subsequent 

 genera (Aspidomorpha Hope 1840, Chirida Chapuis 1875, and 

 Metriona Weise 1896), the suppression of any one of which, would 

 surely be resented by some. The best solution of the difficulty 

 is to designate clavata Fabr. as type of Deloyola Chev., and leave 

 the suppression of Metriona Weise, the last segregate (under 

 which this species has been listed) to the judgment of others. 



The genera established by Chevrolat 1834 in the Dejean Cata- 

 logue, seem to be entirely disregarded by Spaeth and their resur- 

 rection will cause increased annoyance the longer it is postponed. 



The writer also objects strongly to the omission of one of our 

 best-known and oldest specific names through what appearsto 

 be very faulty nomenclatorial selections. Cassida guttata Olivier 

 1790 (Enc. Meth. Ins. vol. 5, pp. 383-384) does not appear in 

 Spaeth's catalogue except as we recognize it under the name 

 Chirida signifera Herbst 1799, among whose synonyms we find 

 "guttata Boh. 1855 (nee. 01. 0-" After a long search the writer 

 believes he has found the reason for this omission to be that many 

 workers have considered the species as founded in Olivier's second 

 great work, 1808 (Ent., vol. 6, p. 956) which is antedated by 

 Herbst's name. Champion 1894 (Biol. Cent.-Amer. Colcop., 

 vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 195) believed he had Olivier's two original examples 

 in the Banks cabinet (mentioned in 1808 work) and identified one 

 with the Mexican Coptocycla extensa Boh. and the other with the 

 oriental sexguttata Boisd. 1835, designating the latter specimen as 

 the true guttata Ol. Spaeth 1903 (Ann. Mus. Nat. Hung., vol. 1, 

 p. 122) vigorously objects to Champion's findings for what seems 

 to the writer to be untenable reasons, and says the name should be 

 dropped "as a mixed name" (als Mischname). Apparently it is 

 for this reason that he has omitted it in his catalogue in 1914. 

 Unfortunately, neither of these authorities allude to Olivier's 

 1790 description, where no mention of the Hanks cabinet is made 

 and where the locality is given as North America instead of 

 Tropical America as in his 1808 work. 



Hoping to settle the question with some degree of finality the 



