190 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Silpha into two sjenera. The idea of type species, now commonly 

 (though by no means universally adopted), did not then exist, and 

 consequently it was competent for Fabricius to determine for which part 

 of the genus he would retain the original name. If it was for the part 

 corresponding with Geoffroy's Peltis, the latter must sink. Fabricius' 

 Necrophoms, as will be seen in the table, is contained in DerviesteS' 

 Geoffroy. 



P. 42. — -Change Tritoinidcc to MycetophagidyE, and Tjdtonia \o 

 Mycetophagus Hellw,, or else cite the name Tritoma from Fourcroy,. 

 1785. The name in this sense should, in my opinion, be suppressed, as 

 it was founded on a false character, and should not have been separated 

 by Geoffroy from his Dermestes. 



P. 79. — Change Clcnis Geoftr. to TRiCHODEsHerbst.,and Thaiiasimus 

 Latr., so far as it relates to the ist division of the genus, to Clerus 

 Fabr. Herbst first divided the genus as established by Geoffroy, and 

 adopted by Fabricius, and therefore had the right to apportion the names 

 to the divisions he founded. 



P. 88. — Steiwcorus Geoffr. The same reasoning would change this- 

 name to Rhagium Fabr.; the latter author having divided Stcnocorus. 



P. 51. — Change Cistelid^ to Byrrhid.e, and p. 52, Ciste/ato Byrrhus- 

 Linn. 



P. 93. — Change Spermophagidce to Bruchid^, and Mylabris Geoffr. to- 

 Bruchus Linn. 



P. 105. — Change TenehrioneUus Cr. to Tenebrio Linn. Tenebrio 

 Geoffr. is considered by Mr. Crotch to have Asida as its type, and there- 

 fore the change was proposed by him for the genus, as restricted by 

 Fabricius, who first commenced its division into several genera. The 

 same reason here applies as in several of the preceding instances. 



P. 107. — Though not connected with the present subject, I may 

 remark that the change of Uloma to Phalcria, and of Phaleria to 

 Halophalcnis Cr., has been produced by the assumption of generic types 

 for the genera of autliors who would certainly have repudiated the idea, 

 had it been proposed to them. Phaieria Latr. was founded on three 

 species, now belonging to different genera, and in course of time, and by 

 the will of those who divided the genus, the ist species has gone back to 

 the previously established genus GiiatJioceriis, the 2nd became Ulo?na and 

 the 3rd retained the name Phaleria. 



