322 ON SOME MAtLOPHAGAN GENERIC NAMES. 



headings of the various subgenera. These subgenera, though 

 ostensibly retaining that rank, were practically treated as genera 

 by Burmeister(1832), Denny(1842), Giebel( 1874), Piaget(1880, 

 1885), and Taschenberg(1882). It was Kellogg(1896, p.60), who 

 first openly raised the subgenera to genera. 



Neumann(1896, pp.56, 60) has pointed out that Hermann had 

 no real justification for erecting Xirmns, hence his genus must be 

 ranked as a synonym of Richiu.s. Moreover, Nirmns Nitzsch 

 (1818) could not stand, as the name had already been used by 

 Hermann. Neumann accordingly substituted Degeeriella for 

 Nitzsch's genus. He went on to point out that, in the elevation 

 of the subgenera to genera, the original genera had not been 

 retained, ;uk1 he, therefore, took the first described species under 

 the first named subgenus in each case as the type of the original 

 genus. Thus Ducophorus was replaced by PhUopterus (with /'. 

 ocelJatus 8cop., as the type), and Colpocejihaluyn by Liotheum {v^'iih. 

 L. zebra N., as the type). Finally, he considered the question of 

 i-cinstating Hicinii.fi. He has credited Piaget with pointing out 

 that the first species described by De Geer, under his genus as 

 Eiciinis/rin<jif/(f\ was .subsequently included in Phymstumum^ ., 

 whereas that author, as well as Giebel and Denny, have, in this 

 matter, simply followed the synonymy given in Nitzscli's work. 

 RicinusJriiKjilbi' De Geer, was made the type-species of the genus 

 by Neumann, and was said to be probably identical with Physo- 

 stomum irasceru^ N. Nitzsch, Denny, and Giebel ha\e, however, 

 definitely placed P.J'ritK/U/cp as a synonym of Ph. nitidissimum 

 N., admitting the identity of the two forms. No reasons are 

 advanced by Neumann to show that the latter admission is 

 incorrect. We may therefore conclude that Nitzsch's Ph. niti- 

 dissimum, rather than his Ph. irascens, is the same species as that 

 named by De Geer as P. /ring ill re, and flesignated as type of 

 Ricinus by Neumann. This author is correct in regarding 

 Physostomum as a synonym of the latter genus: but it appears to 

 lis that the fate of the genera Liothenni and Colpocephalum is also 

 dependent on the above facts. 



Our view of the matter will be seen from the following state- 

 ment. De (jeer founded the genus Ricinus, but, as no type had 



