NOTES ON THE RHYNCHOTA. 239 



1825. The exact date of publication of the tenth volume of 

 the ' Encyclopedie methodique ' and of Latreille's 'Families 

 naturelles ' is uncertain ; but, from internal evidence, pp. 1-325 

 of the former were apparently published before, and pp. 326 to 

 the end, after, the appearance of Latreille's work. Eedurius 

 cruciatus is fixed for the type of EctrichocUa for the following 

 reason, viz., seven species are mentioned, but in the individuals 

 of one only {cruciatd = crux, Thunb.) were the full number of 

 antennal segments present, and this is specified in the generic 

 description : " S'il nous eut ete possible de verifier les antennes 

 de plusieurs especes, nous n'aurions par hesite a proposer cette 

 subdivision comme genre sous le nom d'Ectrichodie (Ectri- 

 chodia), mais nous ne les avons completes que dans une seule 

 espece." 



1835. Lewis, in Trans. Ent. Soc. i. pp. 47-52. This paper 

 is usually quoted " 1836 " ; but Burmeister states that it was 

 published in 1835 (Arch. f. Naturg. 1836, ii. pt. 2, p. 327). 



1843-4. Guerin-Meneville's ' Iconographie ' (Insectes) is dated 

 1829-38 ; the date of the Khynchota part is, however, 1843-4. 

 On p. 352 (in the same part as p. 343, on which the Ehynchota 

 begin) is written : " Nous avous publie dans la ' Revue Zoolo- 

 gique de la Societe Cuvierienne,' 1843," &c. ; and on p. 381 

 (" error," 831) the author states that Amyot and Serville's 

 'Suites a Buffon, Hemipteres ' (pub. 1843), is " actuellement 

 sous presse." Pp. 369-81 may have appeared very early in 

 1844, as the author subscribes the date of writing (p. 385 in the 

 same part) as " Decembre, 1843." Although dated 1843, Amyot 

 and Serville's work may have actually appeared in 1844.* 



1834. Renter (Revisio Syn. 1888) incorrectly assigns arc/us 

 (= malaharicus) as type of Asopus, Burm. This genus was 

 founded in 1834, in Rev. Ent. ii. 1-26, for two species, viz., 

 gihhus (^ cayennensis) and diancs (= anchorago) , which cannot 

 be generically separated (sec. auctt.) from the types of Discocera, 

 Lap., and Stiretrus, Lap., respectively. Burmeister states that 

 this part of the Rev. Ent. was published before his contribution 

 to Meyen's 'Reise ' {vide 'Handbuch,' ii. 349) : " Ich. habe den 

 von mir vorgeschlagenen (in nov. acta. phys. med. vol. xvi. 

 suppl. p. 418) Gattungsnamen beibehalten . . . Friiher" (in Sil- 

 bermann's 'Revue,' ii. 19)," &c. 



" Kleidocerus, West. Hope Cat. 1842," is erroneously quoted 

 (Lethierry and Sev. Cat. ii. 158) as a synonym of Ischnorliijnchus. 

 The former name does not occur in the Hope Catalogue, and I 

 cannot find that it was ever described. It was undescribed, as 

 " Kleidocenjs,'' in Stephens' Catalogue, 1829, and in Westwood's 

 "Introduction," Gen. Syn. 123 (1839). 



'•= The plates of this work were, iu part at least, issued about 1834, for 

 Burmeister quotes them (1835, Handb, Ent. ii. p. 152), and some are dated 

 1834. 



