1892.1 111 



under the arches at the overflow of pools. Mr. Ven-all kindly identified them for 

 me, and the first three are placed in italics in his list. — R. C. Beadley, Sutton 

 Coldfield : March, 1892. 



Note on a doubtful British Philydrus. — In the Entomologist's Monthly Maga- 

 zine, Tol. ix, December, 1872, I described as a new species, under the name of 

 Philhydrus suturalis, a Philydrus that was at that time confounded in our collections 

 ■with P. marginellus, and I also diagnosed a variety thereof. The species was said 

 afterwards by Bedel to be the same as P. coarctatus, Gredler, a species described in 

 a local list in an irrecognisable manner. Although I have never seen any evidence 

 produced to show that Grredler's description was really drawn from P. suturalis, I 

 have not thoixght it worth while to discuss the matter, for so long as the species was 

 recognised it appeared to be a matter of little importance whether it were called 

 coarctatus or suturalis. 



The matter has now assumed a somewhat different form, owing to Kuwert, in 

 the Bestimmungstabelle of European Coleoptera, stating that the form I gave as 

 a variety of P. suturalis is really another species, and applying the name of suturalis, 

 Sharp, to the species (? form) I called a variety, and the name coarctatus, Grredler, 

 to the species I called suturalis. This line is adopted also in the last edition of the 

 " Catalogus Coleopterorum Europse," where suturalis, Slip., and coarctatus, Grredl., 

 are given as distinct species, and are both mentioned as British insects. Thus, as 

 the matter stands at present, the European Catalogue credits us with possessing in 

 Britain a species more than our own lists recognise. 



I have given away at different times "types " of P. suturalis, so that I have 

 now only a very small number of examples, and I am quite unable to express any 

 decided opinion as to whether P. suturalis, Shp., and P. suturalis, Shp., var., are 

 distinct species or not, but there can be no harm in my saying that I doubt it. 



Should it be settled that they are, the synonymical question will then arise as 

 to what are to be the proper names of the two. 



As regards the spelling of the generic name, it may be worth while to recall 

 that Solier, its author, spelt it Philydrus ; this was altered by some of those who 

 considered themselves authoritatively acquainted with classics to Philhydrus ; more 

 recently others who considered themselves authoritatively acquainted with classics 

 say that Philydrus is " classically " as correct as Philhydrus (or more correct, I 

 forget which), and so Philydrus is reverted to. This point would not be worth 

 alluding to were it not that it is a good example of the uncei'tainties that " classical 

 emendations " bring into our nomenclature. My own experience leads me strongly 

 to the conclusion that classical emendations in zoological nomenclature are a great 

 nuisance, and in addition to being eminently uncertain, are quite un philosophical ; 

 the object in making a generic name is to make one of a suitable nature, and distinct 

 from existing generic names, so that change will not be required ; and I do not 

 think classical purists have any right whatever to introduce instability into the system 

 by saying that the name must be formed in a particular way ; that particular way 

 being the one they consider the Greeks would have adopted had they made the 

 name two or three thousand years ago ! A more correct view is that some thousands 

 of years ago Greek names "grew up" according to ways that were found convenient 



