capsidj:. 413 



evolutionary or philosophical conception. The Capsidae are a 

 very difficult group to study, their affinities are of the most ^ 

 complicated description, and for the present we must be satisfied 

 w ith a somewhat artificial or cabinet arrangement. Where I have 

 diverged principally from the excellent work of Renter, is in the 

 taxonomical value ascribed to a structural character of the head. 

 In my opinion a longitudinal incision or sulcation on the upper 

 surface of this region is a primary distinction, and affords a 

 character for the separation of a distinct subfamily. The 

 remaining genera fall into two other subfamilies by the presence 

 or absence of ocelli. This arrangement naturally exhibits in the 

 first two subfamilies, Mirinin and Capshur, some considerable 

 superficial resemblance bet\\een certain genera belonging to the 

 two groups, as, for example, the genera Jler/acoehim (Mirinae) 

 and Calocovis (Capsina)) ; but this is only what is more or less 

 seen in any large divisions which have become necessary for the 

 classification of other animals, though it constitutes the greatest 

 divergence between the classification pursued here and elsewhere. 



As regards the divisions in each subfamily no fixed rule exists,, 

 either in proposition or sequence. Those of Renter are generally 

 accepted, but at least their sequence is not followed by Uhler, and 

 they are altogether unused by Saunders. Their value, however, 

 cannot be overestimated as factors in generic discrimination, 

 if their structural differences are not appraised at too high a 

 value: the}' are but means to an end, and this at present is all 

 we can expect. 



It is necessary here to make a few remarks as to the priority of 

 the names given to these divisions, a question which seems likely 

 to reduce the whole arrangement to chaos. By some recent 

 writers it is insisted that the name of a division must necessax'ily 

 be founded on that of the earliest described genus which it contains, 

 and this, if feasible, would doubtless constitute a good rule. But it 

 is at once evident that such a procedure could result in no finality, 

 and must obscure any reasonable classification by constant and 

 useless changes. For instance, a writer forms a new division, 

 and gives it a name founded on the earliest described genus 

 which it is then known to contain. Another ^M'orker is sub- 

 sequently able to include another and older genus in the group, 

 and therefore a change of divisional name is, on this argument, 

 necessitated, to be again and again repeated as other and earlier 

 described genera may be found to fall into the divisional group. 

 Kirkaldy, in his contribution to the ' Fauna Hawaiiensis,' has 

 shown by his almost universal change of nomenclature what this 

 process may produce, and these remarks are intended as our 

 Aindication for not recognizing the same. A similar argument 

 has been used to even alter the family name Capsida3 to Mirida), 

 because the genus Miris was earlier described than Capsvs I 

 In such a course what entomological name would stand? In 

 Ehopalocera, Lycgeuidse must become a de|)Osed term, and in 

 the Hymenoptera, as Col. Bingham informs me, the family 



