2S0 tr. H. Vorrall: Diiitproloj^ical Xdinenclature. 



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

 propused in lS(Hi. Of coiirse Klein's name — I will uot call it 

 genus — had iio nomenclatorial \ aliie. Why imist Meyniiloasa be aiiien- 

 (k'd to M((/(ilo(/los.sa'f' Tlu'iv nve nunuTuus (Ireek cunipouiid words 

 beginning- witb only Meija, and all zoolugists liave beard uf tbe 

 Megatheriiim . 



6. Hexatonia. 7. Hypoleoii. s. Linionia. !>. Ortlio- 

 ceratimn. Für my |)art 1 positively icfuse tu ri'vivi' uniu'cessary 

 naiucs. 



11. Sargus J. C. Fabricius. The indusiun uf a nanic in an 

 Index ur Xuniendalur is no pruof uf the existence uf sncli a geiuis. 

 Absolute proof is necessary first that a genus was properly 

 füunded, and I would gu fiiithci' and require pruuf tbat it existed 

 as a valid genus at the tinie when the nanie was again us<mI. I 

 positively refuse tu aecept the name Geosargus in su))stitution 

 of Fabricius* 109 years old genus without distinct prouf of the 

 valid existence of Sargus Klein 1792. 



Latreille"s genera Aphrifis, Gout/prs, Mo/ohr/is and Vapjxi 

 were not established until 1804. 



1 am also of opinion that all such proposed generic nanies 

 as those giviMi by Hendel on page 98 are nierely »Catalogue Xanies .. 

 because there is no evidence that Hendel knew anything about 

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

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

 prehended; he cannot knuw himself what he means by bis uwn 

 name and cannot describe it. 



Meigen in 180;! gave no types fui' bis genera : he uiily 

 indicated previously described species which niight i>ussibly belung 

 to bis new genera. His names can unly stand througb bis subsc(|uent 

 interpretatiun uf tbcm. Nu well kn(»wii name shuuld be altert'd 

 until pruved tu be al)suliitely untenable. 



