202 [ February, 



CIMEX OK ACANTHIA. 

 BY J. W. DOUGLAS. 



" Under which king, Bezonian ?" — King Henry iv. 



In the " Wiener entomologisiclie Zeitung" for December (vol. i, 

 page 301), Dr. O. M. Eeuter has an elaborate article on the contro- 

 verted subject of the employment of the generic names Cimex and 

 JLcanthia, in which he refers to what has been written thereon in the 

 " Annals and Magazine of Natural History," 1868, in the " Zoological 

 Eecord," 1869, and in this Magazine xi, 186, and xvi, 172. He says 

 truly that Linne had no idea of a generic type, as appears from the 

 very general characters given to his genera, and yet, that although he 

 divided his genus Cimex into sections, it may, nevertheless, be possible 

 that he particularly (" gerade ") intended the name for lectularius. This 

 is Dr. Renter's idea, but Linne could not logically have done so when 

 he fenced lectularius with special discordant characters. Dr. Eeuter, 

 however, claims to retain the generic name Cimex for lectularius, not 

 only on the ground of his idea, but because Latreille (having ignored 

 or not having rightly comprehended the Fabrician type of Acanthia, 

 which as Fabricius afterwards showed he intended to be C. lectularius, 

 Linn), had intermediately instituted a genus Cimex for lectularius 

 only ; — and this is called obtaining priority ! At most, however, the 

 genus is Cimex, Latr., nee Linn, ; — a chaotic anomaly. As followers 

 of Latreille are cited Laporte, Herrich-Schiiffer, Spinola and Stal (to 

 whom Westwood and Pascoe might have been added) ; and as followers 

 of Fabricius, Fallen, Burmeister, Flor and Fieber (to whom might 

 have been added Anton Dohrn, J. Sahlberg and others). 



Dr. Eeuter now contents himself with saying " Wenn eine 

 Gattung in mehrere zerlegt wird, so ist der urspriingliche Gattungs- 

 name fiir eine der Tochter-Gattungen beizubehalten, und zwar fiir 

 diejenigen Arten, welche der erste Demembrator mit diesem JSTamen 

 bezeichnet hat." On a former occasion he went somewhat further 

 and said " I think the author^rsif making such a division of a genus 

 should have the privilege to employ the name formerly belonging to 

 the entire complex for such of the new genera as he pleases" (Ent. 

 Mo. Mag. xvi, 173) . I have already said I do not admit such procedure 

 is equitable, neither has it scientific accuracy : moreover, Cimex of 

 Linne, being a genus of such proportion as to include all the 

 Oymnocerata, the name is now applicable only as a great divisional 

 appellation and cannot be justly appropriated to any of the separated 



