sherborn's "'index animalium." 65 



The ninth tergite of the male is diawn in tigure A. The manubrium (M) is shorter 

 than that of C. faxciattift. The process (P) is boot-shaped and bears at the apex three 

 bristles, of which one is longer than the process. The " movable finger " (F) is 

 much longer than that of C. fdscititns. It bears, as in that species, two long ventral 

 bristles and a few small ones in addition. The two long bristles have a diiTei'ent 

 position from those of ('.fuscintiiK, being much more proximal in position. The 

 distance between the second bristle and the pointed apex of the finger is, in fact, 

 more than twice as great as the distance from one bristle to the other. The ninth 

 sternite (ix st.) is deeply sinuate ventrally. It bears many hairs, which are very 

 small, with the exception of one or two on the proximal lobe close to the sinus. The 

 seventh sternite of the female is drawn in tigure B. the drawing representing the 

 sternite flattened out in one plane. This sternite is mesially sinuate, the two lobes 

 being truncate, while each side bears about nine bristles. The eighth tergite of 

 this species bears fewer hairs than that of C. fasciatus, there being only two long 

 bristles on each side below the stigma. Length, ^ , 1-9 mm. ; ? , '2*5 mm. 



A large series of this insect was received in May, 1900, from South 

 Kensington, London, taken from Ji».s DitificidHtt. I originally considered 

 it to be identical with ( 'cratophyUiis consimilis, of Wagner, but Dr. 

 Wagner states that a phooograph of the sexual apparatus of a male of 

 the present species, differs markedly from the same portion of his 

 type. 



Explanation of Plate III. 



Fig. A. — Clasper and ninth sternite of d; M = manubrium ; P = process; F = 

 finger. 



Fig. B. — Seventh sternite of ? . 



Sherborn's " Index Animalium." 



By LOUIS B. PROUT, F.E.S. 



In reply to ray notice (antca pp. 18-14), Mr. Sherborn has sent me 

 the following important communication : — 



" I am much interested in your excellent notice, in which you give 

 critical notes of real value to me, in that they raise points which are 

 often evaded, and on which it is difficult to secure agreement among 

 entomologists. Generally speaking, your notice raises the simple 

 question, whether the binomials of a multinomial author should be 

 accepted, I think not, for the reason that, because the author finds 

 two words happen by accident to express his ideas of a diagnosis for 

 a certain form, it does not in any way show that he understood the 

 Linnean view of nomenclature as set forth in the tenth or twelfth 

 editions, I think, also, it should be urged that we cannot have one 

 set of rules for the lepidopterologist and another set for the coleop- 

 terologist, any more than we can have one set for the entomologist and 

 another for the mammalogist. In all the cases of binomials used in 

 multmomial books I tried to get opinions (as you will see from the 

 papers I sent you on Goeze), and it was most difficult to get any one 

 to give a definite opinion. For that reason it was often left for me to 

 decide on the whole, not a part, of a work from the evidence avail- 

 able. May I deal with your points seriatim ? 



1. Gladbach, Bexclireibunff, 1777. — If you accept '• I'halaena tinea chnjsan- 

 thetni,'" on p. 32, why not accept " Siihinx culiciforiniii mm aiuiulo rubra " on p. 61? 



2. I did not realise that Gladbach's Namen was published in 1778. Perhaps 

 you are right, but he may have used his binomials with the same freedom in 1778 

 as he did in 1777. 



3. Goeze, K)tiom. Beytrage. — I had done all the slips for the lepidoptera in 

 this book, but found that the coleoptera portion had quadri- and quinque-nomials. 

 As it was left to my discretion (see correspondence) I had no option but to decide 

 against it. 



