6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. J }, 



Apparently writers have not followed Latrcille, and in 1826 Curtis (Brit. 

 Ent., vol. 3, p. 106) designated in a very definite manner, by the use of the 

 words " type of the genus," Oestrus ovis as the type of Oestrus. 



Since 1826 dipterologists have generally followed Curtis' designation and 

 have considered the nasal bots of sheep as belonging to the genus Oestrus, the 

 warble Hies of cattle and goats as belonging to the genus Hypodcrma. and the 

 horse bot flies as belonging to the genus Gasterophilus, a genus proposed by 

 Leach in 1817. However, in recent years some workers have considered that 

 Latreille's designation of 1810 made it necessary to use the name Oestrus for 

 the horse bots and have resurrected the name Cephalcmyia for the nasal bots 

 of sheep. 



This committee has examined into the literature and finds that Clark was not 

 the first author to propose the name equi. The name cqui was first proposed by 

 Fabricius in 1787 (Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 2, p. 321) as follows: 



"4. O. alis immaculatis, thorace ferrugineo, abdomine nigro : pilis Hauis. 



a. Oestrus nasalis Sp. Ins. 2. 399. 4. 



b. Oestrus haemorrhoidalis Sp. Ins. 2. 399. 5. 



a. et b. merae varietates nullo modo specie sed tantum loco diversae." 



This same description and understanding of cqui was used by Fabricius in 

 Entomologia Systematica, vol. 4, 1794, p. 232. 



Clark in 1797 (Trans. Linn. Soc, vol. 3, pp. 289-328) considers Oestrus equi 

 Fabr. of the Syst. Ent. to be the same as Oestrus veterinus, and Oestrus cqui 

 var. b. as a synonym of Oestrus haemorrhoidalis ; and very definitely points out 

 that Oestrus bovis Linn, is a composite species, the adult described being a 

 species which is a common horse bot and for which he uses the name equi, and 

 the larva and habits being those of the common warble flies, for which he uses 

 the name bovis. Dipterists have apparently followed Clark's usage and many 

 of them have credited the name equi to Clark rather than to Fabricius. It would 

 seem, however, that this is untenable, and that the name eqtii Clark must be con- 

 sidered as a homonym and the species commonly known as equi should have 

 a different name. The name intcstiti<ilis de Geer is available. Oestrus intcsti- 

 nalis de Geer was described from the immature stages, but recently has been 

 accepted by certain workers as the proper name for equi. 



Students who have claimed that Latreille in 1810 designated the type of 

 Oestrus have undoubtedly been in error, because the name cqui was not in- 

 cluded in the original account of the genus either as a name of a valid species 

 or as one of the components of a composite species. From the information 

 available — namely, that which has been presented by Dr. Patton and the litera- 

 ture which has been examined — the committee is of the opinion that the first 

 valid designation for the type of the genus Oestrus is that of Curtis in 1826, 

 when he named Oestrus ovis as the type. 



Even admitting that the species cqui Fabr., designated type of Oestrus by 

 Latreille, 18 10, was originally included within tlie genus by Linnaeus — and this 

 can l)e done only because Fabricius' equi is a new name for nasalis and haemor- 

 rhoidalis — the designation by Latreille would not hold, for the equi he cited 

 is a composite of two of the forms originally included and the designation is 

 equivalent to citing two of the originally included species as type. Since only 

 one of the species originally included can be selected as type, regardless of sub- 

 jective synonymy, the 18 10 designation of Latrcille does not hold. 



