( 50) 



of Koleiiati's original viiils with specimens in lliem, each of these vials being 

 placed in a larger tube with alcdhol. The corks, pins, and original labels of the 

 vials have been removed, and a fresh label bearing tiie name of the insect has 

 been imt inside each of the larger outer tubes. Koleuati's statement, which we 

 have quoted above, abont the distribution of his specimens, can, we think, be 

 interpreted to refer solely to the i)arasites of bats, as there are only examples of 

 bat-fleas preserved in the vials in the Paris Mnseura. 



There are also a number of Kolenati's vials, in the Kuuigl. Museum fiir 

 Xatnrkunde zu ]?erlin apparently in their original state, except for the alcohol having 

 evaporated. Tliese vials seem mostly to have been once in the collection of the 

 famous dipterist, H. Loew, and some of the specimens have been subsequently 

 mounted between cover-slips. On the pins there is a label with the name of the 

 host and one or two labels with a number, and in addition to this, in most 

 instances, a further label bearing the inscription " Col. H. Loew." Unfortunately 

 the pins do not bear any labels with the names of the parasite ; the numbers, 

 however, refer to the Museum catalogue, where the nami' can be found. These 

 Kolenati specimens belong to various genera. It must, however, be borne in 

 mind that the fact of these specimens being labelled " H. Loew," and that they 

 belong to different genera, seems to point to their being specimens other than those 

 which Kolenati refers to in his paper quoted above. 



In the British Museum only two of Kolenati's specimens are preserved. 

 These are now monnted in balsam, but were originally in the characteristic small 

 vials referred to above, and were labelled with their respective names, apparently 

 in the author's handwriting. 



The study of this typical material has enabled us to arrive at a definite 

 opinion as to the application of Kolenati's names for bat-fleas, and our views are 

 stated lielow in as full a manner as necessary. 



In connection with the study of nomenclature Kolenati's material is of general 

 interest. Kolenati designated all the specimens he kept or distributed as " types," 

 but, as we have already pointed out, the word is used in the sense of representa- 

 tives, and in no way as it is used to-day, even when the word " cotype " is 

 taken into consideration as well. At the time when Kolenati was stndjnng 

 Siphonaptera but little attention had been paid to the order, and species as 

 different as the human- and dog-fleas were frequently confounded and treated 

 as identical in the handbooks of that time. Under these circumstances it is not 

 surprising that he did not discriminate between species which superficially resemble 

 one another, but are in reality abundantly distinct. In the case of the eight- 

 combed bat-fleas, for example, Kolenati's types of what he called octactenm 

 comprise a number of species. It is therefore obvious that the value of such types 

 as assistance in the correct ajiplication of the name based upon them is very 

 small — in fact, if only a single such typical specimen were contained in a museum, 

 it might altogether mislead the student who relied on that example as a critical 

 guidu. 



The system adopted by Kolenati is .still followed by many systematists even 

 at the present time — tliat of making a number of individuals types of a new 

 species, or rather, types for the name given to those specimens which are con- 

 sidered by the author to represent a new species and a single species only. This 

 system is frequently most mischievous, as all specimens differ rqore or less 

 inter ae, and such differences are often discovered later to be sisecific. It is 



