( 4 ) 



tlie opinions of entomologists on questions of nomenclatui'e 

 as affecting Entomology ; 



To consider what elucidations, extensions, and emendations, 

 if any, are requii-ed in the International Code ; 



To confer with the International Commission on Zoological 

 Nomenclature ; and 



To lay a Report on these points before the next Congress 

 of Entomology (Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. Ent. 1. p. 120). 



In pursuance of its own part of this work, the British 

 Committee has held several meetings, considered a number of 

 questions submitted to it, and given opinions thereon, which 

 are detailed in the following Report. 



REPLIES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO THE 

 COMMITTEE 



Question 1. — (J. E. Collin.) 



Haliday (1833) described a new genus Heleodromia with 

 four new species : Group A, H. immaculata ; Group B, 

 //. bipunctafa, stagiialis, and Jmitinalis, but fixed no species 

 as the type of the genus. 



Curtis (1834), without splitting up the genus, gave : "Type 

 of the genus H. immaculata Hal." 



Macquart (1835), without any pei'sonal knowledge of any 

 of the species, split up Haliday's genus, retaining the name 

 Heleodromia for the Group A of Haliday (H. immaculata), 

 and proposed a new generic name Hydrodromia for 

 H. hipiinctata and stagiialis (but made no mention of 

 fontinalis). 



Haliday (1840) wrote: "Macquart has divided Heleo- 

 dromia into two genera, but the name should be retained 

 for the second division ; " — " the name applying to the 

 aquatic habits : (has not Hydrodromia been employed among 

 CrustaceaV). I would propose to substitute Sciodromia as 

 the generic name of the first division." 



Ever since 1840 Haliday has been followed and not 

 Macquart, the generic name Sciodromia being used for 

 immaculata, and Heleodromia for stat/nalix and fontinalis. 



What is the type of the genus Heleodromia'? 



