cix 
The Secretary exhibited specimens of the coffee-tree attacked by the “ borer,’ and 
of the larva, pupa and imago of the insect, which had done*great damage in the 
coffee-plantations of Southern India. These were sent by the Rev. G. Richter, 
Principal of the Government Central School, Mercara, Coorg. The insect proved to 
be a species of Clytus. 
The Secretary made the following observations on the nomenclature of Australian 
Buprestide adopted by Mr. Edward Saunders in a paper read at the meeting of the 
, 4th of November, 1867 (ante, p. ci.):— 
“The rejection by Mr. Edward Saunders, in his ‘ Revision of the Australian 
Buprestide described by the Rev. F. W. Hope, of certain published names, in, favour 
of the names given by Mr. Hope in the so-called ‘ Synopsis of Australian Buprestide,’ 
raises a question of some importance as regards priority of nomenclature. 
“‘T have always understood the rule to be this—that the specific name by which an 
insect is to be called and known is the name under which a sufficient description of 
the species was first published. 
“ Names contained in a paper which is privately printed, but not published, rank 
_ only as MS. names: however freely the paper may be disseminated among the author’s 
friends, however wide’ the circle of his acquaintance, it must still remain inaccessible 
to the public,—it is not published within the meaning of the rule. 
“What then are the facts concerning the paper which Mr. Edward Saunders 
(following Laporte and Gory and others) cites as Hope’s ‘Synopsis of Australian 
Buprestidae’? 
“ The paper in question consists of thirteen printed pages, at the top of the first of 
which is the word Buprestrip4Z;; this is the only title which it,bears. There is no title- 
page, preface, introduction or explanation whatsoever; no author’s name, no printer’s 
name, no date; no name of any bookseller or of any place at which the public might 
obtain it; and as to many of the insects described, there is nothing to show that they 
are Australian species, or to point out the collections in which the type-specimens were 
deposited. 
*“‘ At the same time there is no doubt that tlhe author was Mr. Hope, that the date 
of printing was the year 1836, that the insects are all from Australia, and (when no 
other collection is mentioned) were in Mr. Hope’s own cabinet; and lastly, besides the 
descriptions of sixty-six new species, the paper contains references to all the previously- 
described Australian Buprestide, (twenty-seven in number) so that ‘A Synopsis of 
Australian Buprestide’ would have been a very appropriate title to have given it. 
“There can be little doubt that a print of this paper was in the hands of Laporte 
and Gory when they prepared their Monograph of the Buprestide, and it must be 
admitted that they cite the ‘Synopsis of Australian Buprestide’ as if it were a 
published work. Other writers have done the same, probably following Laporte and 
Gory, without having their attention directed to the question of publication or non- 
publication. It is true also that Hope himself (Col. Man. iii. 173) in 1840 speaks of 
‘a Prodromus which I published some few years back.’ ‘ Published’ in the sense of 
being communicated to his entomological friends, I have no doubt it was; but 
‘published’ in the sense of being made accessible to or obtainable by the public, I 
believe it never was. 
* Out of sixty-six forms described by Hope in ‘ Buprestide’ as new species, it 
