41" Mr. G. R. Crotcli's Chronological 



somela [G. sanguinolenta) , Cantharis [C. vesicatoria) , 

 Nccydalis [Malthodes sanguinolentus) . These are all cor- 

 rect except Tenehrio (where Geoffroy's type was unknown 

 to Linnaeus), and NecydaUs. riatycerus and Feltis, often 

 attributed to Geofiroy, must either be rejected as syno- 

 nyms, or, if allowed to remain, be quoted from Latreille 

 and lUiger, who revived thera. The others ought to be 

 all retained. 



1763. Scopoli proposes the genus Laria for Bruchus 

 pisi and Pria dulcamarce. 



1766. SchgeflFer, in his Elementa, proposes TeJephorus 

 for Oicindela of GeofFroy. 



1767. Linnaeus, in his twelfth edition, proposes one 

 new genus, Ilispa {II. atra) . He also revives Lnranus, 

 Gyrinus and Lampyris from the first edition, and selects 

 three of Geoffrey's 28 new genera to be retained, 

 carefully altering the names even of these,, viz., Ptinus, 

 which includes Byrrhus and Bruchus of Geoffrey {Byrrhus 

 being the type, as is apparent from the characters given) ; 

 Byrrhus, which includes Anthrenus and Cistela of Geoffrey 

 [Anthrenus being the type) ; and Bruchiis, which is equal 

 to Mylabris of Geoffrey. It would be difficult to imagine 

 a more complete confusion than was caused by this pro- 

 cedure, and it only required Fabricius to give a third 

 meaning to Byrrhus and Ptinus to render it perfect. 



1772. Pallas, in his Spicihgia, proposed the genus Lig- 

 niperda, to include Bostrichus capuciuus and typographus. 



1774. De Geer, in his Mcmoires (vol. iv.), proposed two 

 new genera, both of which were rejected by Fabricius, 

 and then re-created under other names. Attempts have 

 been made to restore De Geer's names, but, as yet, with- 

 out success. The two are, CoUiuris {Gasnonia pennsyl- 

 vanica), and Ips {Tovilcus typographns) . Brullt5 restored 

 the first, and Marsham the last. 



1775. Linnaeus, in his last publication, the Bigce In- 

 sectorum, founded the genus Paussus. 



Fabricius, in the Systema Entoniologice, raised the 

 number of genera to eighty-three, but if he had attended 

 more to the labours of his predecessors, the nomenclature 

 would not now be in an almost hopeless state of em- 

 barrassment. He rarely gives typos, which are chosen 



