'2^Q G. H. VriTiill; Dipterologifal Nomenclaturo. 



4. Cosmius A. M. C. Dumeril 1816. This geniis was also 

 proposcd in ISOli. Of cuiirse Klein"s iiame ~ I will uot call it 

 genus — had iio nuiiienclatorial valiie. Why miist il/r//r////o.svs-a be ameu- 

 (1('(1 tu Me(/a/o</los,sa'^ There are numerous Greek compuimd wurds 

 beginniiig with unlj Me(/a, and all zuulugists liavo lieard uf the 

 Mcgafheriiuif. 



6. Hexatonia. 7. Hypoleoii« s. Limonia. !>. Ortlio- 

 ceratiuin. Pur niv part I positively refuse to revive unnecessary 

 names. 



11. SargUS J. C. Fabncius. The incliision of a nanie in an 

 Index or Nomenelator is no pruof of the existence (tf such a genus. 

 Absolute proof is necessary first that a geuus was propeiiy 

 founded, and I would go further and require proof that it existed 

 as a valid genus at the time when the name was again used. I 

 positively refuse to accept the name GeosargUS in Substitution 

 of Fabricius" 109 years old genus withuut distinct proof of the 

 valid existence of Sargus Klein 179'J. 



Latreille"s genera Aplirifis, Gonijpes, Molubrus and rappo 

 were not established until 1804. 



I am also of opinion that all such proposed generic names 

 as those given by Hendel on page 98 are merely »Catalogue Names«, 

 because there is no evideuce that Hendel knew anything abont 

 the validity of the genera for whicli he was proposing names, and 

 surely a man cannot give a name to a genus he has never com- 

 prehended; he cannot know himself what he means by liis own 

 name and cannot describe it. 



Meigeu in 180o gave no types for bis genera : he only 

 indicated previously described species which might possil)ly belong 

 to bis new genera. His names can only stand throngh bis subsequent 

 Interpretation of them. No well known name should be altered 

 nntil proved to be absolutely untenable. 



