1881.] 19 



The greatest weight raised was 5 ounces, or2187'5 grains ; the beetle weighed exactly 

 4 grains in a chemical balance, so that it supported in its jaws 547 times its own 

 weight : this is in the same proportion as if a man of 11 stone were to support 371 

 tons, a fact that shows clearly the enormous strength not only of the jaws but also 

 of the neck- and other muscles of the beetle. After seeing this experiment, the 

 large weights that one often sees ants carrying to their nests seem quite to sink into 

 insignificance. — W. W. Fowlee, Lincoln : April l§th 1881. 



Rare Coleoptera near Hastings. — About June or July last, I took three or four 

 specimens of Canopsis fissirostris by sweeping in a wood at Gruestling. I have also 

 taken Athous difformis, which I believe is one of our rarer species of Elateridoe, 

 both at G-uestling and also nearer Hastings. Hippodamia 13-pitnctata has also 

 occurred in a damp place near here. These are last year's captures. The only good 

 thing I have met with this year is Harpahis servus, taken at roots on the Camber 

 Sandhills, near Rye. — E. P. Collett, 12, Springfield Road, St. Leonards-on-Sea : 

 16th May, 1881. 



The generic term " Degeeria." — " New species of Degeeria." Seeing this an- 

 nouncement in the table of contents of the last number (May) of this Journal, I at 

 once turned to the page (vol. xvii, p. 270) in which it was described, and being a 

 Dipterologist, of course supposed that it referred to a new parasitic fly belonging to 

 Meigen's well-known genus Degeeria (Fam. Tachinidce) ; I was, however, disap- 

 pointed, and found that the creature in question belonged to a far different Order. 

 I have been induced to make these remarks in consequence of the careless way in 

 which new genera are named. 



Meigen separated the Dipterous group in question from the great genus Tachina 

 in the year 1838, describing the genus Degeeria in the 7th volume (p. 249) of his 

 work on the Diptera of Europe, while Nicolet gave the same name to a genus of 

 Thysanura in 1841 ?; therefore, the Dipterous genus must take precedence. Rondani, 

 in the 4th volume of his " Dipterologiae Italics Prodromus," p. 40, has the following 

 note on the genus Degeeria : " Degeeria, Nicol., in Thysanui'is propositum 1841, 

 nomen mutandum in Entomobrga." — R. H. Meade, Bradford : May 14th, 1881. 



[Mr. Meade's citation of the first use of the term "Degeeria " by Meigen, in 

 Diptera, in 1838, is quite correct. Nicolet afterwards used it for a genus of Thysa- 

 nura (CoJIembola) in his " Recherches pour servir a l'histoire des Podurelles," p. 70, 

 published in vol. vi of the Nouveaux Memoiirs de la Soc. Helvet. des Sci. Nat. 

 (= Neue Denkschriften schw. Gresell. fur Naturwisseuschaften), 1842 (not 1841). 

 Hence there was no necessity for Rondani' s change of Degeeria, Meigen, into Ento- 

 mobrga ; if a change were necessary, it should have been made by the students of 

 Thysanura. 



The " Xornenclator Zoologicus," by Agassiz, has been generally looked upon as 

 a guide to generic terms published up to about 1847, but in this case it is an un- 

 trustworthy guide. Degeeria, Nicolet, is noticed as a genus of Thysanura, without 

 date, but no mention whatever is made of Meigen's prior Dipterous genus of the 

 same name. — R. McLachlan]. 



