432 Mr. E. Meyrick on tJie classification 



fusion. Hence I retain Euchromius, Gn., although there 

 is a previously existing genus Eiichroniia, Hb. ; Cynada, 

 Hb., although there is an earlier Ci/ncedus, Gron. ; 

 Notarcha, Meyr,, notwithstanding the existence of Notar- 

 chus, Cuv. This is obvious, for if we once begin to alter 

 on the general ground of nearness, there is again no 

 limit to the possibility of change, as no actual line of 

 demarcation can be drawn between forms which are too 

 near, and those which are near but not too near ; thus, 

 to quote an actual instance, Lederer considers Achatodes 

 and Agathodes to be too near, though originating from 

 totally different root-words. No doubt such names as 

 those mentioned above ought not originally to have been 

 formed, just as names which offend against orthography 

 ought not to have been formed ; but once formed, they 

 must be maintained if we are to be logical. It is 

 expressly urged by those who maintain the literal per- 

 manence of original generic names that the form is 

 everything and the meaning nothing, ^nd the appli- 

 cation of this princijile is here undoubted. 



In the following list of species I have ventured to 

 mention some at present unpublished species of Dr. 

 Staudinger (marked List XXXIII), which, as he says, 

 are contained in all the principal collections under the 

 names employed. It is, I admit, a reprehensible 

 practice, but as the species are really pretty well known, 

 and are also well-marked and distinct, I thought it best 

 to acknowledge their existence and fix their classification. 

 In the specific nomenclature I have not entered at all 

 into the subject of synonymy or correction of names, as 

 it does not appear to bear on the present subject ; I 

 have therefore simply employed the name in general 

 use, and have not mentioned synonyms except in a few 

 instances, where I have merged established species. 

 Neither have I troubled to investigate the specific dis- 

 tinctness of some doubtful forms. Those species marked 

 with an asterisk (*) are unknown to me ; I am not at 

 present able to visit continental collections, and have 

 not found it possible to obtain a sight of them by other 

 means ; fortunately they include hardly any species of 

 importance in generic nomenclature ; my paper may 

 therefore be regarded as practically complete. Although 

 only my conclusions as to the European fauna are given 

 here, it must be understood that I have re-examined for 



