32 Mr. Newman's Descriptive List 



IV. A Descriptive List of the Species of Popillia, in the 

 Cabinet of the Rev. F. W. Hope, M.A., with one De- 

 scrijjtion added, from a Specimen in the British Museum. 

 By Edward Newman. 



[Read May, 1838.] 



In offering to the Entomological Society these descriptions of 

 the species of the lamellicorn genus Popillia, I cannot forego the 

 opportunity thus afforded me of bearing my testimony to the 

 liberality with which Mr. Hope's matchless cabinet is thrown 

 open to Entomologists. It gives me much pleasure to acknow- 

 ledge, not only the great advantages I have personally received 

 from this copious source of information, but also the prompt and 

 uniform kindness with which my inquiries have been assisted. 

 I consider Mr. Hope's liberality, in thus affording free access to 

 his collections, a general advantage to science, and likely to assist 

 materially in establishing for the Entomologists of this country a 

 far higher reputation than they have hitherto enjoyed. 



As the species of this genus appear very numerous, I have 

 preferred confining myself, with a single exception, to those in 

 Mr. Hope's cabinet : any attempt to monograph the genus must 

 at present prove a failure. 



With regard to specific names, I have already fully expressed 

 my views in another place, and it is only necessary in addition 

 to state, that I consider names, unaccompanied by descriptions, 

 to be entirely valueless ; and acting on this view of the subject, 

 I totally disregard those published lists of words, which are de- 

 signed to impose names on certain species, without the labour of 

 describing them : so far from believing that such lists will, among 

 men of science, impose names on the species which they are 

 supposed to represent, I believe the greater, and by far the 

 better portion of Entomologists, agree with myself, in considering 

 them mere trash. Again, the practice of attempting to supersede 

 a published and received name by an unmeaning word, of which 

 hundreds of instances occur in two lists published respectively in 

 London and Paris, bespeaks an egotism almost too ridiculous to 

 excite our anger, and an ignorance of scientific usages more to be 

 pitied than censured. It however frequently occurs, that in an 

 extensive collection, like that of Mr. Hope, manuscript names 

 are attached to specimens by the owner, and in describing such 

 species, especially if they are not to be found elsewhere, it 



