32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 73 



Acanthia, der so viel Confusion verursacht hat, und alle Zweifel sind 

 endgiiltig beseitigt. Das its ja schliesslich doch die Hauptsache." 



Hoyle adds : " On reading this re-statement of the case, the follow- 

 ing points occur to me: (i) That the action of Linne in placing 

 ' lectularius ' as first species in ' Cimex/ taken in conjunction with 

 his method of selecting types is almost sufficient to make ' lectularius ' 

 the type of '' Cimex,' though perhaps it does not justify the phrase 

 * rigidly construed.' (2) However this may be,, it seems to me that 

 Latreille (1804) definitely makes 'lectularius' the type of 'Cimex' 

 and this action overrules any preceding subdivisions and eliminations. 

 I, therefore, see no reason to reverse my previous opinion." 



Jordan (D. S.) adds: " I should have taken Stejneger's view, but 

 not insistently as the case is excessively complex." 



Jordan (K.) adds : " i. As a matter of principle the original diag- 

 nosis of a genus should be considered first guide in determining the 

 type species of the genus. If the original author, by the wording of 

 his diagnosis, indicates from which kind of species the diagnosis is 

 taken, this indication has priority over all subsequent ones. E. g., 

 Hiibner describes his genus Heraclia (Lepid.) as having 'glossy 

 green black ' f orerings, and places into this genus three species, of 

 which two agree with the description, while the third does not. Ob- 

 viously, the type of the genus is one of the ' glossy green black ' 

 species. Similarly, Cimex is diagnosed by Linnaeus as having four 

 wings ; his conception of a true Cimex, therefore, was a four-winged 

 insect. The bed-bug does not conform with this conception.. There- 

 fore, I cannot accept lectularius as type of Cimex. But something 

 might be said in favor of discarding priority (or suspending the 

 rules) in this important case." 



" II. Acanthia Fabr., 1775, was based on a number of species in- 

 clusive of the bed-bug. The diagnosis of the genus seems to cover all 

 species, being very general (and faulty). In 1794 Fabricius gave a 

 fuller diagnosis of Acanthia, stating ' elytris coriaceis, planis, apice 

 membranaceis longitudine abdominis. . .', but he, nevertheless, leaves 

 lectularius in this Acanthia. Latreille in 1797 limits Acanthia to the 

 species found near water. Both Fabricius in 1794 and Latreille in 

 1797 place the bed-bug outside the concept of true Acanthia, and I 

 submit that from 1794 lectularius had no valid generic name. 



" III. In 1803 Fabricius reversed his conception of 1794 and re- 

 stricted Acanthia to the bed-bugs. He was not entitled to do so. This 

 concept of 1803 and not the Acanthia Fabr., 1775, was renamed 

 Clinocoris by Fallen in 1829. I consider Clinocoris to be the first valid 

 generic term for lectularius." 



