VJ 



230 fM:nch, 



Tachinus, Grav., Col., 1802 ; {Tachina, Meig., Dipt., 1803). Diptcrista might 



perhaps find another name to replace that of Tachina. Tetratoma, Fabr., Col., 



1790; iff., Fitch, Hem., 1851. Tirmas, Bory, Polyg., 18— ; tci., Steph., Col., 1835 



(r= Ctesias, Steph., 1832). I have not been able to find the date of the publication 

 of Bory de St. Vincent's name ; it almost certainly, however, has priority over that 

 of Stephens ; in any case, Stephens' original name, Ctesias, might perhaps be em- 

 ployed to advantage here. Stephens originally wrote Ctesias, but subsequently 

 changed it to Tiresias, on account of there being a prior Ctesias (Hiibn.,Lep.) ; the 

 latter, however, "was unaccompanied by description, and is not quoted by Agassiz and 



other nomenclators. Trichius, Fabr., Col., 1775 ; id., Hamm., Yerm., 1838. 



Trichopteryx, Hiibn., Lep., 1816 ; id., Kirby, Col., 1826. Trichopteryx, Hiibner, 

 being a genus merely in name, without description, the name in Coleoptera, of 

 course, takes priority. 



Xylophllus, Latr., Col., 1825 ; id., Eschsch., ib., 1829. 



From the foregoing list it will be seeu tha^t by far the greater 

 majority of these names are entitled to priority in Ooleoptera. The 

 remainder, however, have no such claim, and for these I have noted the 

 next available name (a few of which have already been adopted by 

 Crotch or Dr. Sharp), or, if none exist, have, with one or two exceptions, 

 suggested a new one. 



I have not included many other names which differ only in the 

 terminal us, a, or urn ; it seems to me that these names, when they 

 express precisely the same meaning, are very objectionable if retained 

 for more than one section of zoology, and worse still if in use in two 

 sections of one Class, e. g., Insecta ; it would be far better to retain 

 the prior name only, and to change the later one. Other names in 

 Coleoptera that have been universally in use for half a century at 

 least, though pre-occupied in the same subject, it would certainly be 

 very inadvisable to alter as recently suggested by M. Des Gozis ; such 

 names are Bruchus, Byrrhus, llcloIontJia, Mylabris, Cistela, Scolytus, 

 Tritoma, &c. ; for remarks on this subject see Dr. Sharp's article. 

 Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1886, p. 181. 



11, Caldervale Road, Clapham, S.W. : 

 December 8th, 1886. 



MORE ABOUT THE LUMINOUS NEW ZEALAND LARViE. 



BY C. B. OSTEN-SACKEN, Hon. F.E.S. 



Since my last notice on this subject {ante, p. 133 — 134), I have 

 received, through the kindness of Mr. Hudson, a specimen of the 

 larva, preserved in spirits. As I anticipated, it belongs to the 3Iyceto- 

 philiddB, and its snake-like shape (30 mm. length, and less than two 

 mm. breadth) renders it very probable that it belongs to a very largo 

 Sciophila or to some genus related to it. The structure of the head 



