04 THE fANAIMAN KNT« »M< ilJKilST. 



the dales " 1798-9 " for Geoftroy's work, when 1 should have thought that 

 the merefit beginner would know that it was first published anonymously 

 in 176?. It rannot be that Mr. Distant rejects the l)Ook on arcouni of 

 its anonymity, since he fully accepts the first volume of the Hope Cata- 

 logue of Htiniptcra. Hut even if so. the matter is not complicated, as a 

 reissue was made in 1764 under (ieofTroy's name, and a summary, with 

 |»ropcr specific names, appeared in 1785. I must therefore insist on 

 dealing with the original issue of 1762 (or if Mr. Distant prefers, with 

 that of 1764), and not with the much later edition cited by Mr. Distant. 



Uniler " Cinn/a ' (leoffroy first of all describes 25 species, not one of 

 them belonging to the Cicadidic, in a modern sense. On p. 429 he 

 observes that one could reserve for the big CJicadas the name of Cicai/a, 

 ami call the little ones Teti^onia, a name given to them by many authors, 

 Proii;^ales in French, as indeed Reaumur has called them. He then 

 proceeds to give ditl'erential characters for the two. Again, on p. 412, he 

 says that the t'icadas of his country were called by several authors 

 Procif^a/es, to distinguish them from the true Cicadas. Me also describes 

 two of the true sort. 



Mr. Distant contends, first of all, that Ceofiroy's Teti^onia was only 

 a misprint for the Linnean Tftti^onia, of the Orthojitera. Geofi'roy never 

 once alludes to the I.innean Tetti^onia, and renders his own genus 

 Tetii^onia each of the two times he mentions it by name. It is spelt also 

 this way in the editions of 1764 and 1785, and presumably in the later 

 one. It is therefore no misprint, and it is ridiculous to suppose that 

 (leoffroy, who had a much clearer idea of entomological taxonomy than 

 Linneus had, could confuse the Hemipterous Cicadid with the Orthopterous 

 'I'ettigoniid. In those days the rule of priority was as little respected as 

 it is by Mr. Distant to day, and Geoffroy probably disregarded I-inneus s 

 division T(tti\;onia of Gryllui (deeming, as was the case with the ancient 

 Greeks, Tttii^onia to be a Hemipterous name), as I'ubricius did the 

 division Kanalr.-e of I.inneus, when he wanted to found a Iletcroincrous 

 genus. 



One of the most commonly accepted rules of Nomenclature is that 

 two generic names are valid even if differing only by a single letter. Mr. 

 Distant would accept, I suppose, such words as Bala and lialla ; 

 therefore, as Geoffroy docs not mention I.inneus. the modern author 

 ought to accept Tetij^onia and Tettij^ofiia. 



I cannot admit that the reference to Reaumur (a preliiincan author) 

 can fix the type of 7'ftii^onia for the species mentioned by him. The same 



