'Mi THK t'A.NAUIAX KNToMol.lHtlbT. 



AitefioJin Caslelnau, 1840. Ivpc species ? dedni (guttata nillhcrt;. iSi^ 

 (= guttata Castelnau, 1840). 



Apitlus Kabricius, 1775, lype species bimaculatm labricius, 1761. 



Ceroctii Marseul. 1872. type species serricornis Gersiacker, 1854. 



Coiyna Hillberg, 1S13, tyjie species ? Jiet manniit Fabricius, 1775. 



Crioiis Mulsant, 1858, type species "i gutriui Mulsant, 1858. 



Dfcatoma Castelman, 1840. type species ? lunata Pallas, 1781. 



Epicauta \.. Redtenbacher, 1845, type species? erythrocephala 

 Tallas, 1771. 



Gltisuuovia Semeiiow, 1895, type species caspica Semenow, 1895. 



liopetitra Mulsant, 1858, type species ? mfgalocephala Gebler. 1817. 



Macrobaiii LeConte, 1862, type species albida Say, 1828. 



Mylabns Kabricius 1775, type species ? floralis Pallas, 1781. 



Nemognatha Illiger, 1807, type species chrysomdina F'abricius, 1775. 



rrionotus Kollar et Redtenbacher, 1842, lype species pruuitus 

 Kollar et Redtenbacher, 1842. 



rseudomeloe Fairmaire et Germain, 1863, type species ? anthracmus 

 Fairmaire et Germain, 1S63 (= parvus Gay, 1851). 



Spastica Lacordaire, 1859, type species yf<iT'/tW//J Chevrolat, 1838. 



Teratolytta Semenow, 1894, type species dives HruUe, 1832. 



Trtiodous K. Duges, 1870, type ? bat t and F. Duges, 1870 (= /mis 

 Leach. 1815). 



Zofiitides Abeille dc Perrin, 1880, type ? oculi/era Abeille, 1880. 



In conclusion, it may be said that there has been no need to mention 

 pure noiuenclatoiial synonyms in the foregoing paper, as a uomen novum 

 for a genus of course carries with it the name of the type of the genus for 

 which the new name is proposed. It will also be noticed that the genera 

 proposed in Dejean's Catalogues have been ignored exce|)i when such 

 may be fairly attributed to a later author. In my forthcoming catalogue 

 of the sj)ecies of this family I am likewise diopping all citations of the 

 works mentioned, as these names were not accompanied by descriptions. 

 I cannot accord such a name any other status than that of a nomen nudum. 

 While there is no objection to mentioning a published nomen nudum or a 

 name /// Uteris in connection with a description for the convenience of 

 collectors in comparing their material similarly named, yet the conserva- 

 tion of these names in nomenchture serves only to perpetuate confusion. 

 6ig Mariposa .Ave. 



