'242 THE entomologist's record. 



Polt/pliai/a (syn. Hetcrof/ainia). In other words, orthopterists having just 

 grown accustomed to call the Blattn aem/ptiaca of Linnjeus, Pnlyphana 

 aemjptiaca instead of Heteroi/aiiiia aei/i/ptiaca, must now learn to call it 

 Steleopyija aegi/ptiaca ! 



Mr. Caudell's line of argument is as follows : — 



(1) In 1833, Fischer von Waldheim erected the genus Steleopyga 

 for three species, urientalis, L., aniericana, L., and triclinprocta, sp. n. 



(2) Latreille in 1810 selected oricntalis, L., as the type of the genus 

 Blatta, L. ; aniericana, L., "has long been the designated type of 

 Periplaneta " ; therefore trichoprocta is the type of the genus Htelcopyya, 



(3) Steleopyga trichoprocta, Fisch., is identical with Blatta aeyypt- 

 iaca, L. 



(4) It was not till 1835 that Brulle instituted the genus Polyphaya 

 for Blatta aeyyptiara, L. 



(5) Therefore Steleopyga antedates Polyphaya. 



It seems to me that there is a flaw in the argument. Granting 

 that orientalis, L. is not available as the type of Steleopyga, the next 

 species on the list, aiiiericana, becomes available. Mr. Caudell lightly 

 skates over the awkward fact that it was not till 1838 that this species 

 was made the type of the genus Periplaneta, Burm., since it was only 

 in that year that the genus was established. Consequently, if we 

 rigidly apply the law of elimination, aniericana is shewn to be the 

 type of Steleopyga, and Periplaneta sinks as a synonym. But there is 

 really no necessity for these bewildering changes. In the early part 

 of the last century it was not the cusfcomj to designate the types of 

 genera, Imic illae lacJirymae. When FisclTer von Waldheim described 

 the genus Steleopyga, his object was to remove from the heterogeneous 

 Linnean assemblage Blatta, those species which in the male sex bore 

 two symmetrical styles at the apex of the abdomen, and he deliberately 

 disregarded Latreille's designation of orientalis as the type of Blatta, 

 or else he was unaware of it. Surely then orientalis may fairly 

 enough be regarded as the type of Steleopyga, as it is the first of the 

 three species described under this generic term, and Steleopyga there- 

 fore sinks as a synonym of Blatta. This is the line of argument that 

 has been followed by a generation or so of orthopterists, and I must con- 

 fess to thinking it good enough for me. It may also be noted that in 

 1846, i.e., after the establishment of the genera Periplaneta and 

 Polyphaya, Fischer von Waldheim redescribed Steleopyga under the 

 emended name Stylopyga, placing in it the single species orientalis. ^ 

 This is not only an additional argument in favour of regarding orientalis 

 as the true type of Steleopyga, but illustrates the absurdity to which 

 Mr. Caudell's line of argument leads. If Mr. Caudell is to be followed, 

 a generic name stands in one sub-family, and in an emended form 

 sinks as a synonym in another. That is, fide Mr. Caudell, Stylopyya 

 is not synonymous with Steleopyga, though the author of both genera 

 made it so. 



Both Mr. Caudell and Mr. Burr have drawn my attention to 

 the error I have made in employing Stylopyga for species which are 

 not congeneric with Blatta orientalis, L. I acknowledge my fault 

 and suggest the new name Neostylopyga for all the species included 

 under Stylopyga in the Genera Insectoriini, Blattidae, sub-family,. 

 Blattinae : the type of the genus is Blatta rhoinhifolia, Stoll. 



