1975. 207 



Such are the f\ict3 ; and the question arises, which of the three names is to be 

 the name of the species ? Is it to be called I'leocoma staff, P. adjurans, or 

 P. Edwardsii ? 



To me, it is clear that the name given by Schaufuss, being the oldest (and it is 

 not disputed but that the description by which it is accompanied is a sufficient one), 

 is the correct name for the species. It is quite plain to me that we have no right to 

 reject a name on account of the motives expressed, or unexpressed, of the giver : 

 this, indeed, seems so clear that I think it will be generally admitted, and I will there- 

 fore say no more about it. But it may still be objected that the name P. s^a^ ought 

 to be set aside, because it is neither Latin or classical. To tliis I answer that the use 

 of words other than Latin and classical ones, for trivial names, is now generally re- 

 cognized as legitimate, and is expressly advocated by the late Prof. Agassiz (see note 

 on the subject, in his " Joiu-ney to Brazil " ), and by myself. Those who insist on a 

 Latin termination can easily give this to Schaufuss' name by writing it " P. staffa." 



I tliink, then, there is no question that Seliaid'uss' name should be adopted ; but 

 if it be not, then certainly the name P. adjurans, Cr., should be used. I must admit 

 I have read with astonishment Leconte's reasons (above quoted) for setting this on 

 one side. They appear to be thi-ee in number : fu'st, that Crotch " gives no reason 

 for its adoption ;" under the circumstances it was clear that any reason was uncalled 

 for. Second, " that kind of list is an improper place for changes in nomenclature ;" 

 to this I answer, that I consider it one of the best places to make such changes when 

 they ai'c necessary. Leconte's third reason is but a diluted repetition of the " motive " 

 one I have already commented on, and need not notice further. 



I hope the preceding remarks will not be considered superfluous. The principal 

 difficulty in establishing a system of Zoological Nomenclature consists in the constant 

 introduction of new reasons for changing names. The innovations implied by Dr. 

 Leconte's remarks above quoted are so considerable, and his reputation is so great, 

 that the observations I have made will not, I trust, be considered intrusive. — D. 

 SuAEP, Thornhill, Dumfries : January \Wt, 1875. 



Note on a species of Amara new to Britain. — I have no doubt that many others, 

 like myself, have often found a difficulty in satisfactorily separating their exponents 

 oi Amara lunicollis and communis, Mhich, to me, at least, always seemed to be connected 

 by an intermediate form. Thomson, Opusc. Ent. v (1873) , p. 529, has solved the enigma 

 by describing a third species, A. continua, occurring rarely in the south-west parts of 

 Sweden, in sandy districts (but which, as far as my small collection goes, is more 

 abundant here than communis, to which it is allied). 



A. lunicollis has only the two basal joints of the antenna) reddish, or pitchy, 

 often quite dark on the upper side ; the thoracic basal foveou distinctly impressed, 

 but the whole base obsolctely punctured ; the middle tibiiu of the (J distinctly 

 cuned, &c. 



In A. continua and communis, Ihe three basal joints of the antenna) are testaoeous- 

 rcd, and the tibisc are often ferruginous ; the thoracic basal fovea; are more obsolctely 

 impressed, but the base itself is more decidedly punctured, and the anterior angles 

 are more produced. A. continua is the larger of the two, having tho build of 

 lunicollis (viz. : broader than communi^i, less parallel, with the elytra wider behind) ; 



