14 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



4. The previous plate, no. 48, contains only dragon flies, that is, the genus 

 Libellula, and the mistake of failing to change the name of the genus to 

 Gryllus for the species figured on plate 49, either by the author or the type- 

 setter, seems easy. 



5. Drury was an entomologist and one not likely to mistake a locust for a 

 dragon fly, and thus not liable to place this large grasshopper in a Neuropterous 

 genus. 



The above reasons make it quite clear that the inclusion of americanus, at 

 its first appearance, in the genus Libellula was an error or a lapsus calami, and 

 Art. 19 is apparently an authority for setting aside such reference. 



Discussion. — The Secretary has, in the presence of A. N. Caudell, 

 verified the facts submitted in respect to Libellula americanus Drury, 

 1773, index, as appHed to plate 49, figure 2, of Drury, 1770, and is con- 

 vinced that a lapsus for Gryllus americanus is present.^ 



The portions of the Code which come into consideration in this case 

 are as follows : 



Article 35. — 'A specific name is to be rejected as a homonym (i) when 

 it has previously been used for some other species of the same genus. Ex- 

 amples : Tssnia ovilla Rivolta, 1878 (n. sp.), is rejected as homonym of 

 T. ovilla Gmelin, 1790. 



Article 19.- — ^The original orthography of a name is to be preserved unless 

 an error of transcription, a lapsus calami, or a typographical error is evident. 



In the Code of the American Ornithologists' Union, 1892, p. 47, 

 Canon 33, which corresponds to Articles 34 and 35 of the International 

 Code, reads as follows : 



A generic name is to be changed which has previously been used for some 

 other genus in the same kingdom ; a specific or subspecific name is to be changed 

 when it has been applied to some other species of the same genus, or used 

 previously in combination with the same generic name. [Italics not in the 

 original.] 



By a strict construction of Canon t,^ of the A. O. U. Code, the inter- 

 pretation might be made that Libellula americanus 1773, even though 

 a lapsus, is invalidated by Libellula americana 1758. 



The case in question is one of several of its kind that has come to 

 the attention of the Secretary, but this is the first instance in which 

 the Commission has been requested to render a definite opinion upon 

 cases of this nature. 



*A reference to Drury, 1782 (Illustrations of Nat. Hist., vol. 3, p. xviii, 

 footnote), has been brought to the attention of the Secretary. This reads: 

 " The reader is desired to correct an error in the index, where this and the 

 following insect are ranked among the Libellula, but should be among the 

 Grilli Locusta." This quotation supports the opinion as written. 



