THE GENOTYPE OF THE BLATTID GENUS STELEOPYGA. 23 



has not before been brought forward as a pabulum for this broom- 

 frequenting ^Yeevil. 



(.'i'lithur/njnchus ewldcai iac, Gjll., was in numbers on Cardamine 

 piatensis in the Spring, when also at the Offham osier beds, among 

 cut reeds, I took '■'■'- 0)-cIiestes saliceti, F. 



Those species marked with an asterisk are not recorded from Sussex 

 in Canon Fowler's work, and have not been noted by me before 

 from that county. 



The genotype of the Blattid genus Steleopyga. 



By A. N. CAUDELL (National Museum, Washington U.S.A.). 



Having started the discussion on the above subject, T would like to 

 make a few additional remarks. In the September number of this 

 magazine, Mr. Shelfoi'd takes me to task for my " assiduity in raking 

 up names from the decent obscurity of synonymy." I realize clearly 

 that changes of well-established names is deplorable, but, where general 

 usage does not warrant a given treatment, changes due to correction are 

 ultimately inevitable, and the sooner they are made the better. Thus 

 the resurrection of Steleopyga. It may have been Fischer von Waldheim's 

 intention to have Blatta orientalU typical of his genus Steleop)j;/a, but 

 it is facts, not intentions, that prevail in nomenclature. To consider 

 oricntalis the genotype of Stdeo/nji/a, and at the same time concede that 

 it was previously the validly designated type of an older valid genus, is 

 a stand not in accord with general usage, and one ultimately destined, 

 I believe, to fall into general disfavour. The International Code allows 

 this treatment, but it is against the good judgment of the able secretary 

 of that Commission, as clearly set forth by his personal rule No. 12d.^ 



I am further charged with skating over the fact that it was not till 

 1838 that aiiiericana was made the type of Veriplaneta. But this fact 

 is not important. I admit that aiiien'cana was eligible for selection as 

 the type of Stelcnpi/;/a from 1833 to 1838, and indeed, so far as I can 

 learn, until 1890, when Kirby designates it as the type of Veriplaneta. 

 If it was designated as the type of Feriplaneta before 1890, I have 

 failed to note the reference. Thus, for many years americana was 

 available as type of either Veriplaneta or Steleopipja, but was not 

 designated as either. Upon its designation as the type of Veripdaneta, 

 it ceased to be available as the type of Stelenpyf/a, no matter what the 

 date. TricJioprocta was all the time available as the type of Steleoptp/a, 

 and, when a)nerica)ia was designated as the type of Veriplaneta, 

 triclwprocta, becoming the only available species, became the type of 

 Steleo]»jifa. The fact that Brulle established his genus Vobjphai/a on 

 aeijt/ptiaca does not alter this fact, as triehnprocta was not mentioned 

 in this connection by Brulle, indeed, its synonymy with Brulle's species 

 was not recognised for some years. ^ Holding that the inclusion of a 

 specific name in synonymy under one designated as the type of one 

 genus does not invalidate it as the type of another genus, I believe 

 trirhoprocta to be the logical type of Steleopi/ga. This appears preferable, 

 as the sinking into synonymy of ['(di/p/iaiia seems less of a calamity 

 than to sink the more generally known genus Veriplaneta. 



^Hygcnic Bulletin No. 24, Treasury Department, U.S.A., p. 27 (1905). 

 -Tlie earliest reference for this synonymy known to me is 1865, Brunner, 

 Nouv., Syst., Blatt., p. 354. 



