GOEZE'S SPEGIFIG NAMES IN HEMIPTKHA 



by G.-\V. Kirkaidy. 



Gûeze's spécifie names in Hemiptera (1) hâve been acceptée], by 

 Reuter (2) and most subséquent authorities on Hemiptera, as valid. 

 SiiEHBORX, however (3), dismisses tlieni as notconsistentiy binomial. 



This is a matter that bas a considérable intbience on the older 

 nomenclature, as, although many of Goeze's names of 1778, were 

 adopted by Gmelin in 1789 many others were not. 



My own opinion coincides with that of Reuter. Goeze strays but 

 seldom from the narrow path and it is évident from a study of the 

 second vohmne, at least, of his work, that he intended it to be in the 

 (( Linnean style ». It is worthy of notice that while Sherborn rejects 

 ail Goeze's names, he accepts ail de Geer's binomials, though the 

 latter is responsible for Cicada laternapia chinensis, C. lat&marla 

 fusca, C. foliata fasciata, C. foliata arcuata, C. foliata fusca, C. spu- 

 raaria graininis , C. spumaria salicis, C. musciformis ulmi, Cimex 

 viridis totus, C niger spinipes, C. capensis ruber and C. depressus 

 hetulœ, to take the first dozen to hand. I think that de Geer aiso is 

 not consistent] y binomial. 



It is also noteworthy that Sherhorn accepts Geoffroy's gênera 

 of 1762, though this author is usually not Ijinominial, that is to say, 

 his new species are not validly made. 



The following is a list of Goeze's valid new names, omitted by 

 Sherborn. It will be seen that while some are preoccupied, others 

 hâve priority. 



CICADA 



VOL. II. 



p. 150. Il fusca, alboguttata. 

 P. 151. scutata, fuscomaculata. 

 P. 152. flavofenestrata. 

 P. 159. maculata, nigro punctata. 

 P. 160. rubroelylrata. 



P. 161. Il gibbosa, pallida, nigra, flavofasciata, || trifasciala, fusco- 

 fasciata, atro punctata, geographica. 



NOTONECTA 

 P. 169. octopnnctata. 



(1) 1778, Entomologische Beytrage II, 117-346. 



(2) 1888, Act. Soc. Se. Feim. 



(3) l',X)"2, Index aiiimalium I, p. xxvi. 



