88 



ON SOME GONTROVERSIAL 

 ITEMS GONGERNING A FEW RHYNGHOTA 



bj 11'. L.. »istaiit 



Referring lo the communication by L'" Bergrotii on this subject 

 (Ann. Soc Knt. Belg. ante p. 28) I fear that my censorius friend wiil 

 dérive as little comfort from Lis treatment of ihe genus Malciis as 

 he did from his dissertations on Eamenotes. I stated tiiat I conside- 

 red Stâl had discarded his proposed subfamily Malcida (1865) by 

 placing it under « Gênera et species Lygoeidarum incerti loci sys- 

 tematici » (1874). In reply to this Bergroth makes the amazing 

 assertion that(( tiie type oï Malcus was destroyed or mislaid in 1874 

 (which is clearly indicated by the absence of the words « Mus. Holm » 

 after the name) and thus unknown to Stâl himself wIjo conse- 

 quently could not locatc it definitely in his System of 1874, but natu- 

 rally placed it among the gênera incertœ sedis where he never put 

 species known to him ». As the type, M. flavidipes was described in 

 tlie results of the « Eugenies resa » and therefore belonged to the 

 Stockliohii Muséum, the question was easily tested I at once wrole 

 to D"" Sjôstedt tlie director of tlie entomological department of that 

 institution to know the whereabouts of tlie type? In reply I learn 

 that it /v stili there ! ! This is quite in keeping willi Beroroth's 

 assertion tliat StAl did not know the genus Eumenotes « in natura », 

 an opinion however which he now withdraws. I notice and accept 

 the statement of Bergrotii that he did not repeat the criticism of 

 Breddin, but that both he and Breddin were simply reproducing 

 the opinion of D'" Horvàth but without the acknowledgment of 

 their autliority. The motive for thèse répétitions is obscure, but it 

 can be left at that. 



Bergroth again ignores Lethierry who in the Cat. Hem. (Leth. 

 and Sev.) 1894, placed Malcm in the Golobathristidic. This is the 

 more surprising as I believe that both Bergroth and myselfsaw 

 the proofs of that volume before it was published.Why therefore did 

 my censor wait till I had followed the same course ten years after- 

 wards before again rushing into the controversial arena? it is to me 

 an enigma that Bergroth of ail writers should pose as the censor of 

 those who do not, or are supposed not to follow Stâl's divisions. 

 His own treatment oï Eumenotes, though of course quite justifiable, 

 requires no comment. But after ail, classificatory Systems are classi- 

 ficatory proposais, some of course better than others. Bergroth 

 seems to regard them as infallible dogmas ! 



