1806.] 231 



catalogue, Boheman'a opinion is adopted, and A. ononidis, Gyl., and Bohemani, Boh., 

 are placed in juxta-position as distinct species. Schaum followed the same course 

 in both editions of his catalogue ; and Wenckcr, the most recent nionogTapher of 

 the genus, has thought Boheman's description most applicable to the well-known 

 A.fiavipes (not pa/rvpes, as erroneously printed in my last communication) ; and 

 Thomson himself has only recognised that the two supposed species are identical 

 by an inspection of Boheman's type ; indeed, if any one who possscses Apion 

 ononidis will examine it, he will find that there is an important discrei^ancy between 

 it and Boheman's description. The second reason suggested by Mr. Eye for the 

 suppression of Gyllenhal's name is that it too closely resembles a previously existing 

 (but ungrammatical) one in the same genus, viz., ononis of Kirby. Now I cannot 

 for a moment entertain the opinion that this is of itself a sufficient reason for 

 dropjaing a name universally adopted and substituting for it one more recent, and, 

 as shown above, in other respects very objectionable. Gyllenhal, Bohcman, Schon- 

 hcrr, Schaum, De Marseul, Grenier, and others have not thought that the names 

 Apion ononis and ononidis too closely resemble one another to co-exist in the same 

 genus ; why, then, should Mr. Rye ? To recollect the fact that Apion ononis and 

 ononidis are two distinct names and represent different species seems to me not 

 one whit more difficult than to associate in one's mind the names Stenus higuttatus, 

 bipvnctatus, bimac^datus, iinotatus, and bifoveolatus with the species to which they 

 are applied. Moreover, what does Mr. Rye propose to do with the universally 

 adopted Bliynchites hetidce and hetuleti, Cicindela sylvicola and sylvatica, &c., &c.? 

 Besides, if the name ononidis were dropped, we should no doubt have some gram- 

 matical purist stepping forward to point out that the designation ononis is absurd ; 

 and that evidently ononidis must be substituted for it ; indeed, that probably Kirby 

 meant to have written, or did write, ononidis ; and thus would arise another source 

 of confusion for future students. Wo ought always to bear in mind, when suggesting 

 or adopting a change of nomenclature, that the object we have in view is, not to 

 display our own learning, research, and contempt for ignorance, but to promote 

 simplicity and prevent confusion ; unless, then, it is quite evident that a change 

 vnll further these objects, we shall do far better to leave matters in statu quo. — Id. 



[There is now sufficient evidence to enable our readers to form their ovni 

 opinions. The inference that Gyllenhal's description aj^plies to both sexes, whilst 

 Boheman's only fits the male, may be logically correct, but does not do away with 

 the fact that the former does not mention the important male character ; and, if 

 continental authors be right in supjiressing tho Homalota vicina of Kirby on account 

 of a similar omission, the same measure should be meted to all. Personally, I do 

 not think such an omission alone sufficient to annul priority ; but, in the pi'esent 

 case, the proposed change is strengthened by tho confusion of the mere names 

 ononis and ononidis, which are intended for tho genitive of the same word (there 

 being, indeed, some Latinized Greek words wherein the genitive is simple, — instead 

 of compound, as in the present case). I must, however, remark that I havo 

 proposed nothing in the matter ; and I protest against my name being selected as 

 objecting to the co-existence of these names, whilst the authors above mentioned 

 have been content with them : it was Thomson, and not I, who proposed the 

 change. I fail to perceive how the specific compounds of hi in Stenus have any 



