GENERIC NAMES OF THE FAMILY STAPHYLINIDAE 29 



Termitosocius Seevers, T. microps Seevers. 

 TermitosodaUs Seevers, T. barticae Seevers. 

 Termitospectrutn Mann, T. tlioracicum Mann. 

 Termitozophilus Silvestri, T. laetus Silvestri. 

 Thaxteria Fenyes, T. insularis Fenyes. 

 Thyreoxenits Mann, T. pai-viccps Mann. 

 Timeparthenus Silvestri, T. regius Silvestri. 

 Trachopeplus Mann, T. setosus Mann. 



Page 641— 

 Xenogastcr Wa.smann, X. inflata Wasmann. 

 Xenopelta Mann, X. cornuta Mann. 



There are no new designations among these and no erroneous cita- 

 tions. It may be noted that Borgmeier has not cited genotypes for 

 subgenera or synonyms, an omission which is of less significance in 

 this group of names than it would be in other parts of the family. 



SPECIAL COMMENT ON TOTTENHAM'S RECENT PAPER 



As the present work was completed and being prepared for publica- 

 tion, there appeared Part 9 of "The Generic Names of British Insects." 

 This part is on the Staphylinidae and is by the Rev. C. E. Tottenham. 

 It is undoubtedly a most important paper on genotypes of Staphy- 

 linidae, although nmch of it has been anticipated in a series of papers 

 by Tottenham from 1939 to 1949. 



There are several commendable features embodied in this paper. 

 First, the bibliographic work is on a standard far above that of most 

 work on the family. This alone serves to correct many long-standing 

 errors in names. Much of this is due to the help of F. J. Griffin, who 

 has long ranked as an outstanding bibliographer. Second, in general, 

 Tottenham has not been afraid to make the changes indicated by his 

 discoveries; he has not insisted on retaining names merely because 

 they are well-established and familiar. And third, he has documented 

 his citations for the benefit of other w^orkers and has discussed cases 

 of previous error or confusion. 



Unfortunately, there are also some features of less desirable nature. 

 There are only a few sentences of explanation of the principles by 

 which the author governed his decisions; he fails to live up to his 

 introductory statement that systematic work is beyond the scope of 

 the paper, since he employs systematic status as a major factor in his 

 genotype citations ; he follows the implications of the editorial notes 

 in the reissue of Opinion 1 ; and he falls into the same error for which 

 he has criticized others — of being unfamiliar with several major 

 sources of type fixations in this family. 



Because of the advanced state of the present manuscript when Tot- 

 tenham's paper was received, and because of the great amount of space 



892643 — 52 3 



