108 tHE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST, 



short time since the issue of his first paper, proves to be a very industrious 

 and prohfic author. He does not seem to have accepted the above defi- 

 nition, or at least to a great extent ignores it in practice, but the idea he 

 attaches to tlie term species is only known by inference. He writes, Bui. 

 No. 6, Calif. Acad. Sci., p. 162: "Forms which some Coleopterists 

 would regard as specific, are held by others to be simply racial, and by 

 others again as merely accidental variations not even worthy of a name." 

 That he entertains the first of these opinions seems to be a correct in- 

 ference, from the fact he has described as valid among the larger species 

 a considerable number of forms which others consider as variations. 

 Now, it can scarcely be supposed that he did not know, in common with 

 others, the common parentage of many of these : and, if so, then he does 

 not fully recognize this relation as essential in the construction of species. 

 In other words, he founds his species on identity of structure, thus making 

 them practically artificial, like genera. This brings him into direct con- 

 flict with those who regard common parentage as an essential element in 

 species, and as they happen to be in the majority and control our cata- 

 logues, many of his species are placed in synonymy at once. Mr. Casey, 

 among our Coleopterists, seems to stand alone in his views, but Lepidoj)- 

 terists for a long time appear to have had a somewhat similar split. 



These two views are diametrically opposite. The first recognizes no 

 single individual as a type when others are at hand, and raises an in. 

 superable barrier to the multiplication of species. The second describes 

 more or less minutely any individual, and calls it the type of a species, 

 but never defines how far it is allowable for other individuals to vary and 

 still belong to that particular species, and so can offer no defense against 

 their multiplication ad libitum. 



The re-description by Americans of our Coleoptera that were first 

 described in Europe, has been and still is of inestimable value, and it 

 would have been no loss had every species of ours described there been 

 re-described here and placed in synonymy. 



The original descriptions were often largely defective and so indefinite 

 that to make a determination with certainty was impossible, even when 

 they were accessible. The American descriptions in the synonymy are 

 much cleaier, and from them, with a little practice, except in minute or 

 closely related species, the insect may be readily known ; and in fact, for 

 many species are the only accessible or intelligible descriptions we yet 

 have. As no two writers present the same thing in the same way, by 



