﻿104 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



aussi iioires, mais le reste des pattes & les antennes sont d'une 

 couleur pale & transparente." The pale tibiae and antennse 

 indicate its identity with Uzel's Trichothrips cojnosa, an hypo- 

 thesis which is strengthened by a study of his figures on plate i., 

 especially fig. 11, which shows an unarmed, swollen, fore femur, 

 and a strongly toothed tarsus. But final corroboration comes 

 when we read, towards the end of his description : " Voila done 

 des Trips d'une meme espece, dont les uns sont ail6s & les 

 autres entierement d^pourvus d'ailes, mais qui a cela pres se 

 ressemblent parfaitement. Differeroient-ils de sexe ? C'est sur 

 quoi je n'ai pu encore avoir des eclaircissemens." This places 

 the species definitely in the genus Trichothrips, Uzel, and 

 absolutely precludes any possibility of its being either Fhloeo- 

 thrips coriaceus (Haliday), 1836, or Acanthothrips nodicornis 

 (Eeuter), 1880. Consulting the distribution of copxosus in the 

 literature, we find that it is a common and well-distributed 

 species, having been recorded from Finland, Poland, Hungary, 

 Italy, England, and the United States of America. Its closest 

 European allies {Thrips ubni, Fabricius, 1781 ; Phloeothrips pijii, 

 Haliday, 1837 ; and Trichothrips affinis, Eeuter, 1899— all of 

 which are now placed in the genus Trichothrips, Uzel), in 

 addition to having nearly black tibiae and dark antennae, are, on 

 the other hand, rare or almost unknown species and of restricted 

 distribution. Trichothrips copiosa, TJzel, 1895, is thus a synonym 

 of Trips corticis, De Geer, 1773. 



So far we have discussed only the Trips corticis, De Geer, 

 omitting all reference to the insect which Amyot and Serville 

 identified as that species, and referred to their new genus 

 Hoplothrips. Their description is of an insect with " les cuisses 

 anterieures epaissies, bidentees." This character makes im- 

 possible its reference to De Gear's species, and Karny in 1912 

 identified it as Acanthothrips noclicornis (Eeuter) ; but that 

 species has only one tooth on the fore femur. The insect which 

 they really had before them was doubtless the male of a species 

 of Hoplanclrothrips, Hood, of which there are now known several 

 European species. Burmeister's Phloeothrips coriacea is also a 

 male oi Hoplandrothrips (at least, in part), an opinion in which 

 Mr. Bagnall concurs (in litt.). But whether or not these 

 opinions are correct, we are certain that Amyot and Serville' s 

 Hoplothrips corticis is a misdeterntination and not the proposal of 

 a neiv name, and is thus without standing in nomenclature. 



The case, then, is that of a genus based upon a wrongly 

 determined species. The International Commission on Zoolo- 

 gical Nomenclature holds (Opinion 65) that "as a specimen is 

 the type of a species, so a species is type of a genus, and that 

 when an author names a particular species as type of a new 

 genus, it is to be assumed that it has been correctly determined," 

 and that even if subsequent investigation should disclose the fact 



