112 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 



Synonyms :* Typhlocyba Gerrnar 1833 (in part) ; Diomma Motschoulsky, 

 1863. Which see under those dates. 



1833, July or later. TYPHLOCYBA. Germar, E. F. Conspectus gene- 

 rum Cicadariarum. Revue Entomologique (Silbermann), 1, 1833, 

 p. 180. 

 There has been some difference of opinion as to priority between this 

 name and Eupteryx Curtis; as both were published in the year 1833. 

 However the internal evidence to be found in the volumes of the respec- 

 tive references leave one in amazement that any misunderstanding could 

 have arisen as to the dates of publication of the names Eupteryx and 

 Typhlocyba. The Entomological Magazine was inaugurated as a quar- 

 terly and the first issue was for September, 1832. The difficulties attending 

 the launching of a new publication were, therefore, out of the way before 

 time for the second number, that in which we are specially interested, 

 since it contains on page 192 the original description of Eupteryx. This issue 

 of the Magazine is dated January, 1833, and it is certain not only that it 

 was published in that month but early in the month (before the 10th) as 

 evidenced by a communication dated January 10, 1833, published in the 

 April issue, which criticises the "admission into your last number" of 

 certain of the generic names of Curtis in the very article with which we 

 are concerned. Thus the January, 1833, issue of the Entomological 

 Magazine was not only published before the 10th of the month, but had 

 reached a subscriber in time to enable him to write a letter of criticism 

 by that date. 



Evidence derived from the pages of Silbermann's Revue Entomologique 

 leaves no doubt whatever that Germar' s genus Typhlocyba was published 

 some months later than Curtis's Eupteryx. In the first place the volume 

 was issued in 6 (if not moret) brochures and it is fair to presume that 

 then as now the separate issues were distributed through the year. We 

 should expect therefore that in a 6 part volume, part 4 (in which the 

 genus Typhlocyba was originally described) would have been issued after 

 the middle of the year. That this was in fact the case is shown by dates 

 signed to communications in the various numbers. Thus at page 140 in 

 brochure 3 is an exchange list dated May, 1833, and on page 247 in part 

 6 a postscript dated October 29, 1833. Of greatest interest in this connec- 

 tion, and absolutely convincing as to the earliest possible date of Germar's 

 paper (on page 184, brochure 4) is his signature to the article dated Halle, 

 July 3, 1833. + . If the Conspectus Generum Cicadariarum was published 



•The genera of Eupterygidae have received different treatment from practically 

 every author. I cite only the important synonymy and usually only that supported by 

 my own investigations. 



t Bibliographie de la France 22, No. 16, April 20. 1833, i>. 254, slates that the Revue i> 

 promised monthly, but from the volume I have examined the number of brochures 

 appears to have been six. 



X How this date has been overlooked and ignored is hard to understand. Even 

 Kirkaldy, a nomenclatorial specialist, who appreciated the priority of Eupteryx, 

 remarks (Bui. 1, Part 9, Exp. Sta. Hawaiian Sugar Planters' Assoc. 1906, p. 357) that 

 Germar's paper was published " before Easter." 



