THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 189 



By reference to the several editions of Geoftroy it will be seen, ist, that 

 he did not adopt the binominal nomenclature, except in regard to the addi- 

 tional species described in the supplements to the edition of 1799*; 2nd, 

 that he did not admit himself any rule of priority in generic names, inas- 

 much as he described genera previously proposed by Linnaeus under other 

 names, quoting Linnaeus in synonymy ; 3rd, that he made no reclamation 

 either in genera or species, in the last edition of his work. 



It must also be kept in mind that Olivier and Latreille, cotemporaries 

 and friends of Geoffroy, used his generic names only so far as they did 

 not conflict with the genera established by other authors up to the date 

 of their respective memoirs. They did not therefore ' revive ' these 

 names, as claimed by Mr. Crotch, but adopted them and introduced them 

 into the proper and permanent literature of scientific tenninology, thus 

 placing them upon a new basis. 



It would therefore appear, that notwithstanding the great value of the 

 work of Geoffroy, and the importance of the views of classification which 

 he proposed (and none will be more ready to admit the merit of his 

 labors than myself,) he did, by an unfortunate want of appreciation of the 

 necessity of adopting the Linnaean binominal nomenclature, and by not 

 recognizing the principle of priority, exclude himself from being cited 

 cither for genus or species under the existing code, except so far as relates 

 to the supplemental species in the edition of 1799. 



In all other instances the names of his genera are free, and must be 

 attributed to the authors who subsequently employed and defined them, 

 •either 7uith or witJiout reference to his use of the names. 



In order that the evidence upon which I have based my opinion may 

 be readily accessible, I have appended the remarks of Mr. Crotch upon 

 the priority of his names, and two tables, one of synonyms, the other of 

 homonyms of all the Coleopterous genera defined by Geofiroy. 



In conclusion, I would recommend to those who use the Check List 

 to substitute for the generic names adopted from Geofiroy in that work, 

 the following, which have been in current use : 



P. 37. — Peltis Geoffr. to Silpha Linn., and change Silpha to 

 Necrophorus Fabr. Fabricius was the first to divide the Linnaean 



* An abridgment of his work under the name of Fourcroy, with binominal 



nomenclature, was issued in 1785, and must be taken, therefore, as the earliest date 

 for his species. 



