590 APPENDIX. 



whether rightly or not, and, as I have no hypothesis, I am perfectly open to 

 conviction. 



" I have now somewhat to observe respecting the names of these parts. 

 First as to your collare. Though this is not the tliorax, I think we should still 

 call it collare. This term is not here absolutely improper, as it is like, though 

 not in reality, a collar ; it has been introduced by your ' Monog. Apum Ang.,' 

 and adopted by Illigcr, and we shall not easily find a better. In Coleoptera, 

 of course, we shall very rarely have occasion to make use of it, but in every 

 other order it will be of constant occurrence. Dorsum, I think as before, is 

 very objectionable, from being a word of such general import, and so often 

 improperly used for tergum. For this part I think we should have some word 

 equivalent either to our good English term, after-corselet, or to ante-scutellum, 

 the coining of which I give up to you, the master of our mint. 



" I do not exactly recollect what parts we meant by lumbi, or interlumbium. 

 If the former were intended for ycur quondam metathorax, I think it is objec- 

 tionable, as being a plural name for one flat surface, and because in anatomy 

 the tei'ms apply only to the sides of the lumbar region ; but I see no objection 

 to interlumbium for this part. We still want a name for the transverse part be- 

 tween the scutellum and interlumbium. Might not this be the post-scutelhim 

 or something equivalent ? Hypochondria. — In referring to a system of anatomy 

 I find that this term, as we use it, is anatomically incorrect, the hypochondria 

 being, in fact, the sides of the epigastric region of the abdomen, but though in 

 part covered by the false-ribs, forming no portion of the true pectus. As we 

 apply the term epigastrium to the base of the abdomen, it will of course bo 

 highly improper to apply a term appropriated to the sides of the epigastrium 

 to the pectus. On this account, and as Linne evidently in Cerambyx rubus 

 a.pplied this term to the whole sides of the postpectus (which was correct, ac- 

 cording to his idea of regarding that part as the epigastrium — see Cantharis 

 rufa) had not we better drop it, and adopt Knoch's parapleura, which seems 

 unobjectionable ? 



" I cannot guess what we meant by Intercosta, Femoralia, and Costulrv, though 

 I very well remember giving those names to particular parts. But though I 

 have since examined the postpectus of many Coleopterous insects, I see no 

 parts but what may be referred to the pcristethium, mesojtethium, scapularia, 

 and parapleura. These, indeed, arc sometimes crossed by apparent sutures, 

 but I do not think this is a sufficient reason for dividing them into more 

 distinct parts. Knoch's meriae® are clearly the hind coxaj. Of course we 

 have nothing to do with thera. 



" Squamula. — I stumbled lately upon an objection to the use of this teiin in 

 the sense you have given to it in 'Mon. Apum Ang.,' viz., that Linne had 

 applied it to the angular elevation of Formica. We should certainly, there- 

 fore, have a distinct name. Uliger's name, tegula, does not seem very much 

 amiss, as in Hymenoptera this part aptly enough may be compared to a little 

 tile. Our English base-cover cannot be improved. 



" So much for objections. Besides which I have to notice two or three 

 'things that we yet seem to want names for. 1st. Should we not have a name 

 for the upper wing-cases of GryUi, &c., which being of so diflferent a substance 

 can scarcely with propriety have the terms elytra and coleoptera applied to 

 them. Illiger uses tegmina, but perhaps a better term might be selected. I 

 perceive in a large foreign Gryllus, which doubtless you possess, a curious 

 concave shell-like process, between the claws of the tarsi, to which neither 

 puhillus nor onychiiim is applicable. What shall it be called ? Would it not 

 be very convenient to have a term signifying that the surface of any part of an 

 insect is free from all inequality, in opposition to fuveola;, stria, &c. ? Lavis 

 is not sufficient, as properly it shuuld be restricted to denote the absence of 



