224 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST 



In the gradual progress of science, and with the multipHcation of 

 genera, it came to be considered that the person who recognized the 

 necessity of subdividing an ancient genus, should exercise his judgment 

 regarding the part to which the old name should adhere ; and in most 

 instances this was attended with no inconvenience. 



Rarely, as in the case of Temnochila JV^c, the name of the original 

 genus Trogossita was retained for a group which did not accord with the 

 original definition ; the new name was imposed upon the set of species 

 which should have kept the original name. These instances are but few 

 in number, and the exposure of the error committed is sufficient to cause 

 its immediate correction. 



I would therefore infer that the practice of some students in recent 

 times, of applying the older generic names in a different sense from that 

 in which they were restricted by the persons first making the divisions, is 

 founded upon an incorrect interpretation of what was formerly meant by 

 a genus ; and that these old authors, were they now ali\e, would strongly 

 resist the limitation of their generic idea to a single type-species. 



When the describer of a genus establishes the genus upon a single 

 species, either because it is the only one known to him, or because, as is 

 sometimes the case, he does not choose to enumerate the others, then of 

 course, from the accident of the case, tliat particular species becomes 

 typical of the genus, and must remain so as long as the present system of 

 nomenclature is adopted. But when, on the other hand, several species 

 are included in the genus, and they all agree accurately in the possession 

 of the characters mentioned d^?, defining the genus, they must in my opinion 

 be regarded as equally typical. It would save much confusion in inter- 

 preting the modern use made of these restricted older names, if in all 

 instances in systematic works the restricting authority was added in 

 parenthesis. 



A more difficult source of confusion is that resulting from the erroneous 

 position ascribed to a genus, which renders it, with the ordinary usages 

 of interpretation, absolutely irrecognizable; as when, for instance, the 

 Byrrhide genus Amphycyrta was described by IMannerheim as a Tene- 

 brionide, under the name Kucyphus, and the genus A.mphizoa also as a 

 Tenebrionide (I)ysmathes). In these two cases Mannerheim's names 

 fail from want of priority, but liad this not been the case, I still maintain 

 that the names of erroneous position should be suppressed in fiivor of 

 later names which may have been independently given, and correctly 



