cx 
appears from Mr. Edward Saunders’ investigations that three are unrecognizable, the 
type-specimens having been lost, and fourteen sink either as synonyms or varieties. 
Of the remaining forty-nine, the Hopeian names were in twenty-cight instances adopted - 
and rightly applied by Laporte and Gory; fourteen have been published subsequently 
to 1836 under names different from Hope’s, and these have been rejected by Mr. Edward 
Saunders, and the unpublished Hopeian names preferred. Of the residue, seven in ) 
number, descriptions (under Mr. Hope’s names) are now for the first time about to be 
published by Mr. Edward Saunders. 
“The necessity for the laborious examination which Mr. Edward Saunders has 
made is sufficient evidence that the insects in question have not become known, and 
do not pass current in the eutomological world, by the names assigned to them by | 
Hope. Such of his names as are in use have come into use in consequence of their 
adoption and publication by Laporte and Gory. So far from the printing of 
‘ Buprestide’ having given them currency, it seems that Laporte and Gory in some 
cases applied Hope’s names to the wrong insects; and it is the species to which the 
names were thus erroneously applied that are known by the names which Hope 
intended for other insects. 
“TI submit that the unpublished names of the anonymous print ‘ Buprestidae’ 
must give way to published names, whatever the date of the latter may be.” 
Prof. Westwood argued that Mr. Hope’s paper, though privately printed, had in 
fact been so widely disseminated as to amount to publication; at any rate, that it 
might be treated as published swh modo—i.e. as against all persons who had notice of 
its existence. ; 
The Secretary remarked that, if that were so, the Hopeian names would prevail 
over those of Laporte and Gory ; and as publication must be taken to be notice to all 
the world, every anthor subsequent to Laporte and Gory had, through the publication 
of their Monograph, constructive, if not actual, notice of the existence of Hope’s 
descriptions. But he thought the ground untenable, and that even as against Laporte 
and Gory (and a fortiori as against those who had only constructive notice, through 
them, of the existence of the unpublished paper) the Hopeian names were of no 
authority. The adoption of them was not obligatory on Laporte and Gory, but was 
commendably courteous to Mr. Hope. In one instance only had they knowingly 
rejected Mr. Hope’s name, Calodema Kirbii. Upon this Prof. Lacordaire (who 
probably thought that Hope’s descriptions of 1836 were published) had remarked 
“ MM. de Castelnau et Gory ont changé a tort le nom de l’espéce en celui de Cal. 
regalis.” (Gen. Col. iv. 61). But the reason why Laporte and Gory did not adopt 
Hope’s name was doubtless this, that there was already a Stigmodera Kirbyi of 
Guérip, described in the ‘ Voyage de la Coquille.” Calodema with Laporte and Gory 
was only a division of Stigmodera; when it was recognized as a separate genus, the 
two names Calodema Kirbii and Stigmodera Kirbyi might have co-existed, if regalis 
had not been published in the interim. That the publication of Calodema Kirbii, 
Coleop. Man. iii. 173, fig. frontisp. (1840), was subsequent to Laporte and Gory’s 
regalis might be seen by reference to the Manual itself. 
The President, Mr. Bates, Mr. M‘Lachlan, Mr. Pascoe and other members, agreed 
that accessibility to the public could alone constitute publication within the meaning 
of the rule of priority in nomenclature, 
