xxxiii, '22] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS 83 



A Correction and a Protest (Col., Carabidae). 



l'>y H. C. FALL, Tyngsboro, Massachusetts. 



In the December, 1919, number of the Journal of the New 

 }'oi'k Entomological Society, Mr. Howard Notman concludes, 

 after a somewhat elaborate argument, that Hayward, in his 

 Review of the North American Species of Bcinbidimn, was in 

 error in suppressing the B. arcnatnin and probably also the 

 incrcnmtnni of LeConte as synonyms of the European dcntcl- 

 liun Thunb. Mr. Notman's points would seem to the casual 

 reader to be well taken, but unfortunately his conclusions rest 

 almost solely on his interpretation of the descriptions of the 

 species in question, while Hayward, as we know, had the 

 LeConte types before him at the time of writing, and being 

 notably conservative in his work it is fair to presume that he 

 would not have suppressed these names without good reason. 



During a recent visit to the Museum at Cambridge I took the 

 opportunity to examine carefully the types of arcnatnin and 

 incrematum, and to compare them with a good and undoubtedly 

 authentic European series of dcntellum present in the Museum 

 collection, which comparison quite satisfied me that Hayward's 

 course was the correct one. 



This incident is here mentioned, not so much to correct Mr. 

 Notman's misapprehension in this particular case, as to express 

 a protest against the custom, all too common of late, of creating 

 so-called new species on differences evolved from a too rigid 

 interpretation of the descriptions of the earlier authors. To 

 cite a single instance out of many : There occurs on the 

 Southern California seashore a rare and aberrant little Ca rabid, 

 described by LeConte, under the name Lyuinacinn Iciticcps, 

 afterward referred to Bembidium. In the brief description the 

 color is given as piceous tinged with rufous, and the thorax 

 is said to be not wider than the head. Tn a recent paper Col. 

 Casey describes as new Lyimicops angusticeps from the same 

 region and having the same- peculiar characters, but held to be 

 distinct because of the color being pale red brown with a discal 

 fuscous cloud, and the head not as wide as the thorax. As a 

 matter of fact the head is not as wide as the thorax in the 

 type of laticcps and the color is substantially as described of 

 angusticeps. In other words, Casey's description of any us- 



