ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE RHYNCHOTA. 219 



for this step. Acanthia, Fabr., 1775, contained a heterogeneous 

 assemblage, but it was not till 1797 that Latreille indicated 

 littoralis and its congeners as the types of the genus. It is, 

 I think, indisputable that (1) Acanthia was not broken up, nor 

 was any type fixed, till 1797 ; and (2) that Latreille did fix the 

 type. I therefore see no alternative to adopting the name 

 Acanthia for littoralis, &c, as Eeuter has already done in his 

 monograph of the palsearctic species. 



For Cimex lectularius, Linn., I now propose the generic name 

 Klinophilos (with genotype lectularius). 



From the remnants of Acantfiia have been formed, up to 1803, 

 Phymata, Latr., 1802 ; Aradus, Fabr., 1803, of which Eeuter 

 has indicated the types; and Tingis, Fabr., 1803, of which 

 Eeuter cites "Acanthia pyri, Fabr.," as the type. This is, 

 however, incorrect, T. cardui (Fabr.) having been indicated by 

 the founder of the genus (p. 125). 



2. In 1762 Geoffroy erected two genera — Naucoris (type 

 [cimicoides, Geoffr. nee Linn.= ] maculata, Fabr.) and Corixa 

 (type [striata, Geoffr. nee Linn. =] geoffroyi, Leach).* Sigara, 

 Fabr. 1775, is synonymous with Corixa, Geoffr. 



The next publication was Olivier's contribution, in 1789, to 

 the 'EncyclopedieMethodique,' vol. iv. In this precious volume 

 a "new" genus, Pentatoma, was "founded," though very feebly 

 diagnosed, and without mention of species or type. 



As the work is, I believe, rare, it may be interesting to some 

 rhynchotists to read the original descriptions : — 



" No. 59. Cimex, Linn. Geoffr. Fabr. Acanthia, Fabr. — 

 Antennes filiformes, composees de quatre articles tres distincts. 

 Trompe recourbee sous la poitrine, creusee en goutiere, & con- 

 tenant trois soies. Trois articles aux tarses. Corps alonge, 

 rare-merit ovale, souvent deprime. 



"No. 60. Pentatoma Cimex, Linn. Geoffr. Fabr. — Antennes 

 filiformes, composees de cinq articles cylindriques. Trompe 

 recourbee sous la poitrine, creusee en goutiere, & contenant trois 

 soies. Trois articles aux tarses. Corps souvent ovale." 



That is to say, the only workable difference between the two 

 is that Cimex has four-segmented antennae, Pentatoma five. 

 Fabricius, in 1794 (Entom. Syst. iv.), splits up Cimex into five 

 genera, Cimex itself being reserved for the forms now known as 

 " Pentatomidte " in the widest sense. Now, if Pentatoma, Oliv., 

 as subsequently fixed by Lamarck in 1801 (note, twelve years 

 after its original proposal), is allowed to be valid, I fail to see 

 how the type of Cimex can be fixed. Pentatoma, Oliv., 1789, if 

 it has any value at all, is equivalent to the " Pentatomidas " as a 



* I do not know why Reuter places Geoffroy's " Histoire abregee des 

 Insectes " in the first part of his ' Historische Uebersicht,' viz. " Arbeiten, in 

 welchen die binare Nomenclatur nicht durchgefiihrt ist "!! 



x 2 



