1879] 23 



to this interpretation. To what end has Agassiz laboured to index genera if not for 

 the correction of the errors of past time as well as to give warnings for the future ? 

 Prescriptive right cannot, at any rate, be pleaded for a genus that dates only from 1861. 



4. Pachtmeeus. — Dr. Puton says that this generic name should be maintained 

 because Latreille has applied it only to a section of the genus Bruchus. I referred 

 this question to one of our best Coleopterists, who answers thus : — " Latreille's 

 Pachymerus (1825) was described as a genus, and has been adopted by some. The 

 name was certainly not disposable after 1825, and should not, therefore, supersede 

 another more recent name, as has been attempted by some continental authors." I 

 do not think I need add anything to show that Fachymerus cannot be revived in 

 Hemiptera, as proposed. 



5. Beosus, Am. et Serv. — Dr. Puton says, " With Stal I have altered the name 

 Ischnotarsus, Fieb., into Beosus, A. et S., which has the priority. JBeosus quadratus, 



A. et S., is not, as Fieber considered and Mr. Douglas appears to believe, Lygce-us 

 quadratus. Fab., but quadratus, Panz., = lusciis. Fab. The genus Beosus, Fieb., is 

 not really distinct from the genus Fachymerus ; but the genus Beosus, A. et S., Stkl, 

 Horv., Put., = Ischnotarsus, Fieb., is very distinct from it." 



I know that LygcBus quadratus, Fab., is not the same as L. quadratus, Panz., as is 

 shown by the foi'mer species being placed in the geuus Calyptonotus (= Fachymerus, 

 Put.) in the " Catalogue of British Hemiptera,"* but the matter is complicated, and 

 it is no wonder that many authors have erred. The descriptions of the genus Beosus, 

 species quadratus, by Am. et Serv., certainly point to B. lusciis, Fab., rather than to 



B. quadratus, Fab., yet they give as the exponents of their descriptions LygcEus 

 quadratus. Fab., Coqueb., 111. t. ix, fig. 12, and F. quadratus, Schill., Beitr., 66, 4, t. 

 5, fig. 6 ; and it is singular that if they meant F. luscus. Fab., they did not refer either 

 to Schilling's description and figure of it, op. cit., t. 6, fig. 4, or to Panzer's B. qua- 

 dratus, which also is luscus, F., and not quadratus, Fab., as given by Panzer. The 

 result is therefore, properly, that, disregarding Amyot and Serville's citations, their 

 genus must supplant Dieuches, A. Dohrn, = Ischnotarsus, Fieb. ; and Beosus, Fieb., 

 must merge into Fachymerus, Put. {= Calyptonotus, D. & S.) as Dr. Puton says. 



6. Scolopostethus decoratus, Hahn, = ericetorum, Leth. — Dr. Puton says, " I 

 persist in this synonymy with Messrs. Eeuter and Horvath:" — I am sorry I cannot 

 concur. Hahn says of decoratus that the antennae are stouter than in F.pictus, which 

 is true of F. qjffinis, Schill., to which I refer Hahn's species, but not of ericetorum; 

 further, that " the basal joint at the end and the second at the base are reddish-yellow," 

 and his figure interprets this to agree exactly with affinis but not with ericetorum. 

 Hahn himself cites the species as affinis, Schill., but says, that because Schilling had 

 described only the form with the membrane of the elytra wanting, he altered the 

 name ! — J. W. Douglas, 8, Beaufort Gardens, Lewisham : 16^/i May, 1879. 



Correction of error. — I regret to have (with the intention of adding a useful 

 reference at the end of the Rev. A. E. Eaton's descriptions of Bphemeridm, in Ent_ 

 Mo. Mag., vol. XV, p. 268) caused a confusion between these insects and the Culicidce 

 from the same district, referred to by that gentleman in the appendix to Capt. Elton's 

 Journals, published by Murray. It was to the Diptera only that any reference or to 

 figures should have been made ; and Mr. Eaton informs me that the condition of the 

 specimens of the EphemeridcB precluded any figures of their genitalia being given. — 

 E. C. Rte. 



* The reference under C. quadratus to Am. et Serv., p. 13, must be expunged.— J. W. D. 



