ujwn the Gemis Syi^tis of Fahricius. 19 



Iiad most particularly in view when he proposed such genus, and 

 which he consequently regarded as its express type. 



The first species of the genus Syrtis was the European Acan- 

 tliia crassipes, which we l^ave already seen Latreille had expressly 

 given as the type of his genus Phymata. If therefore there 

 existed no other means of identifying the Fabrician type of the 

 genus Syrtis, I maintain that we ought to regard Syrtis as synony- 

 mous with Phymata, although it may (as indeed in this case it 

 does) happen, that the genus Syrtis contained species not generi- 

 cally identical with the first species. 



But in this case there is no such uncertainty. The second 

 Fabrician species of Syrtis was the American Cimex erosus of 

 Linnaeus, and from this insect the characters of the mouth were 

 expressly drawn by Fabricius : supposing therefore, for a moment, 

 that every other species placed by Fabricius in the genus Syrtis, 

 were now ascertained to be generically distinct from this species 

 dissected by Fabricius, it must be quite clear that the erosus was 

 the true type of Syrtis, and the only species which ought to 

 remain therein ; and my opinion upon the matter is, that in case 

 such typical species had 2^^cviously received from some other 

 author a distinct generic appellation, it would not only tend to 

 confusion, but would be decidedly improper to apply the name 

 Syrtis to any other insect placed by Fabricius in that genus, which 

 did not possess the character of such type. Of the impropriety 

 of such a step this very genus affords an instance ; for the last 

 three Fabrician species do not correspond with the type, indeed 

 Fabricius himself says, " Ultimse tres species ab hoc genere dif- 

 fere videntur — forte proprii generis ; " and yet by adopting the 

 principle advocated by some authors (viz., that it is proper to 

 employ a second synonymical generic name for species not ac- 

 cording with the type of the second genus, although placed 

 therein), it would be as correct to retain the generic name Syrtis 

 for these three discrepant species, as to appropriate such generic 

 name to any other species not agreeing with the type. 



It is true that these three species belong to the genus Macro- 

 cephalus first above-mentioned, but by not attending to the other 

 species of the Fabrician Syrtis, there has been additional confusion 

 introduced even into this little group. 



From what has been said it wdl be seen that the three generic 

 names thus far introduced into the group are — 



1. Macrocephalus Swede rus ; (true type, M. cimicoides.) 



2. Phymata Latreille; (true type, Acanthia crassipes?) 

 ?>. Syrtis Fahricius; (true type, Cimex erosus, L'mn.) 



c 2 



