HM{ TIIK 1A>.\1)|A> K.MU.MOI.'UJIKT. 



language. The word I'enus, for example, when used as a generic symbol 

 is merely a combination of letters without meaning, and the species names 

 should be given the masculine ending. So, genera ending in soma or 

 derma should have the feminine ending in the specific names, without 

 regard to the gender of such words in the Greek, (iencric symbols, even 

 if considered a part of language, could not be Cireck. but, as soon as 

 taken into the nomenclatorial scheme, become Latin, which should be 

 the sole source of specific words. These species nanrcs always have a 

 meai»ing and therefore assume a different status from generic symbols ; 

 they can and should be altered if necessary to give the meaning intended 

 by their author. 



Looking through the pages of this catalogue I would propose the 

 following changes : 



//}f>tioma Csy., y. i6r, is a synonym of Jfoliius Krichs, ; the species 

 Cubensis seems however to be valid. This error in the generic name 

 indicates one of the disadvantages of working without full literature at 

 hand, as the writer has been forced to do on many occasions ; but, in this 

 case, although resulting in a synonym, there is a certain advantage in 

 having a perfectly independent estimate of the systematic position of the 

 genus, whicli seemed to be a Xantholinid and not closely related to the 

 Ca/ius series. 



The genera Ttr<i$i>f<i .ind Taf'^irif.fnf,!, p. 242, arc subdivisions of 

 Aloconota. 



Euromota, j). 24.', and Anepsiota, p. 236, are valid subgenera of 

 At/ieta, as this genus is supposed to be constituted by recent authors. I 

 do not agree with those who place so niany heterogeneous elements under 

 the genus Alhela, and believe that the ideas expressed in the older 

 catalogue of Heydcn, Keitter and Weise are far nearer to the truth. 

 There such names as Aciotona, Lioj^luta, Aloconota, Amischa and some 

 others, stand for genera in the fall sense of the w.>rd, each with numerous 

 subgenera. 



Macroteniia, p. 242. is a valid subgenus of Athtta in its comprehen- 

 sive sense. Ti)e si)ecies </<r///<»/<i, of Uernhauer f^Mi-Ai^, is smaller and 

 narrower than alutacea Csy., and llie two are not very closely related. 



I/oma/otusa, p. 242, is also a subgenus o( Af/ie/a, near Liot^luta. 



Elytrusa, p. 235, may or may not be the sanie as Mt^'nta, for I am 

 by no means certain that the type is identical with the type of Me^^tita 

 Key ; it however is at best a subgenus, very closely allied to Afegisla. 



