112 [May, 



(2) I am certainly not proposing " to entirely alter the accepted 

 meaning of n. sp.'' but only to make the accepted meaning clear. An 

 author proposes a new name in every case noi (as Lord Walsingham 

 assumes, thereby begging the question) because the species is previously 

 imdescribed, but because it is unnamed. If I announced in this maga- 

 zine that I had captured a fine new species of Adela, blue with a red 

 spot on each forewing, which would be named by my friend Lord 

 Walsingham in the next issue, would he then write anything but n. sp. 

 after it ? Yet I should have already sufficiently differentiated the 

 species from all known. I maintain then that my view is logical and 

 correct, and it is only because as a matter of fact new specific names 

 are in practice usually applied only to species supposed to be un- 

 described, that the misconception has arisen. 



(3) Lastly, I should like to protest against another popular mis- 

 conception which Lord Walsingham appears to favoiir, viz., the view 

 that any intrinsic credit or honour attaches to the namer of a new 

 species. If a name is grammatical, short, sensible, appropriate, and 

 euphonious, and if a description is clear, -concise, and accurate, these 

 qualities deserve credit to the extent of their realization ; but if a 

 reasonable standard is not reached, discredit is the result. Let any- 

 one who doubts this, look up the obituary notice of Francis "Walker 

 in this Magazine (Vol. XI, p. 140) ; it is a fearful warning. The 

 author's name attached in books and catalogues to a species is not for 

 his honour, but for use as the briefest bibliographical record. As such 

 it must express a fact, and Lord Walsingham's suggestion that my 

 substituted names might be attributed to " Kearfott corr. Meyrick," 

 apart from its cimibrousness, is based on inaccuracy ; the names were 

 given by me, and not given by Kearfott and corrected by me. Kearfott's 

 names would of course always be on record as synonyms. 



Thornhanger, Marlborough : 

 April 6th, 1912. 



Notes on the British species of the Coleopterous genus Philonthus. — On carefully 

 examining the species of this genus I was struck by the great variation in the 

 sculpture of the thorax, the cross-striation and punctuation, apart from the 

 larger punctiires by Avhich they are divided into groups. It seemed, therefore, 

 worth while examining them with a view to tabulating the characters of each 

 species. Although these differences are constant they are not put forward as a 

 direct means of identification, yet in many cases they are of great use to the 

 student in verifying the species. In most cases the striation takes the form of 

 waved lines, vaiying in fineness, distance apart, and in sinuation. In others 

 these lines are broken, taking the form of short dashes, or the thorax is finely 



