1908. I 29 



Qastrodes grossipes, De Greer (C.ferrugineus, Linn., 1758, nee. Scop. 176:5), Copium 

 cornutum, Thunb. (C. clavicornis, Houtt., 1765, nee Linn., 1758), Sphedanolestes 

 earnifex, M. et R. (Reduvius sanguineus, F., 1794, nee Rossi, 1790), Acanthia 

 muelleri, Gmel. (Cimex oculatus, Mucll., 1776, nee Fabr , 1775), Megaloceriva recti- 

 comix, Geoffr. (C. linearis, Fuessl., 1775, nee Fabr., 1775) Calocoris hispanicus t 

 Gmel. (C. sexpunctatus, Fabr., 1787, nee Linn., 1758, nee Mucll., 1776), C. nor- 

 vegicus, Gmel. (C. bipunctatus, Fabr., 1779, nee Linn., 1761), Cremnocephalus 

 albolineatus, Rent. (C. umbratilis, F., 1787, nee Linn., 1758), Orthotylus virescens, 

 D. et Sc. {Capsus chloropterus, Kirschb., 1855, nee H.-S., 1853). 



On the other hand, Kirkaldy has without i-eason changed the name for Pseudo- 

 loxops coccineus, Meg. ; a Capsus coccineus does not exist earlier (only Miris, id. 

 Duf., and Phytocoris, id. Spin.). 



Concerning the names for families, subfamilies and divisions, I 

 have lately (Hemipterol. Spekul. T, Klassific. d. Capsid., Festschrift 

 fiir Palmen, T, 1905, pp. 56-58) expressed my opinions and I refer to 

 this article. 



I cannot agree with Kirkaldy on the point that n family or division 

 name necessarily must be derived *from the name of the earliest de- 

 scribed genus belonging to it, and that existing family names must be 

 changed if they do not refer to such a one. Such a proceeding 

 threatens the stability of nomenclature, of which several instances 

 could be mentioned ; also in this case the earliest given family name 

 has priority. I have for practical reasons used the same names 

 as Saunders in the article, which it has been my purpose to supple- 

 ment by this one. 



Lastly I must here touch upon the question of the formation of 

 names for genera which are joined together. I consider it scarcely 

 right strictly to keep to the principle that the combination should 

 receive the earliest of those names published in the same work for the 

 genera joined together. It is far more sensible to select the name of 

 that genus which has the most numerous species. 



At least it looks to me inappropriate when, for instance, a genus 

 with one species is joined to another with a hundred, to give to the 

 combination the name of the former genus, only because it was 

 printed some pages earlier in the same work. The case will certainly 

 not be very different if it had been published in previous works, but 

 in such a case we are perhaps obliged to sacrifice to priority. 



I finish here with an apology for having occupied so much space 

 in the Magazine with such barren and uninteresting questions as those 

 treated above. But insignificant as they are, it is of importance, that 

 order and consistency should be introduced in nomenclature, and that 

 every kind of arbitrariness should be excluded. 



Finland. Russia : 



October 1st, 1907. 



