92 A7inals Entomological Society of America [Vol. IX, 



generic characters we are informed by Fallen who was almost or 

 quite a contemporary of Fabricius. Latreille in 1810 was the 

 next to say he was naming types for the genera of the Hemip- 

 tera, followed by Laporte in 1832 and Westwood in 1840. 

 Kirkaldy claims that Latreille in his work of 1802, in naming 

 "examples" under each genus, was really naming types but I 

 have been unable to accept this as he so obviously was selecting 

 the species most likely to be known to those students Hving in 

 France and did not restrict himself to them in his definite type 

 fixations of 1810. Some of those early systematists named two 

 types to a genus and in such cases I have followed Kirkaldy in 

 rejecting both and taking the next valid fixation. 



In the matter of species there is but one point I wish to 

 bring out. As I understand the International Rules subgenera 

 are placed on the same footing as genera and subspecies and 

 varieties on the same footing as species. Hence, subgeneric 

 names are preoccupied by generic, and subspecies and variety 

 names are preoccupied by those of species, and vice versa. 

 This principle has not been recognized in the Oshanin Catalogue 

 but it is really essential that it be generally adopted on account 

 of the frequency with which a form is shifted from one category 

 to another. 



Before closing, I wish to call attention to a matter that it 

 seems to me is of prime importance and that is what I would 

 call the validation of entomological literature. If you will take 

 the trouble to look up the matter you will find that most of 

 the changes in names come through different methods of 

 selecting genotypes and through varying views regarding the 

 vahdity of certain early papers. After we think we have the 

 nomenclature of some group of insects well settled some one 

 will dig up an ancient catalogue and discover there new names, 

 generic and specific, and armed w4th these he will proceed to 

 demoHsh our nomenclature. Our most crying need now is for 

 a vaUdated list of early books and papers, published, say, prior 

 to 1850, and I would strongly urge that a committee be 

 appointed, preferably by the International Zoological Congress, 

 to go over the zoological bibliographies, which are now fairly 

 complete, and decide which works are valid and which are mere 

 catalogues or are too ephemeral to have a standing in zoological 

 nomenclature. That we should discard mere catalogue names 



