Vll 



be somul, iheu Dejeaii's Diurus dates from 1834, eighteen years prior to Motschulsky, 

 and Mr. Pascoe's difficulty does not arise. 



So also, if Biurus, in spite of its hybrid formation, is to remain unaltered, Mr. Pascoe's 

 ditHculty does not arise. 



These, however, ai'e modes of avoiding the question, not of answering it. Let us 

 consider it from Mr. Pascoe's own point of view, admitting for the present argument the 

 two postulates which the question assumes, (1) that the Brenthid Diurus dates only from 

 18(i'i, and (2) that Biurus is not to be retained. 



When a name is simply mis-spelt, I hold that the spelling may be corrected, but the 

 name retains its priority. Stephens wrote Oinophila, which has been corrected into 

 (Enophila; but the genus (Enophila is properly referred to Stephens, and dates from 

 the time of the publication of Oinophila. 



But when a name is mal-formed, the malformation must either be retained or 

 discarded iii toto ; in the latter case, a new name is substituted, and the new name dates 

 only from the time of substitution. 



Hybrid names fall within the latter class. They are malformations, not mis-spellings; 

 if not retained in their defonnity, they are to be eradicated and replaced, but not 

 reformed. If Stephens had written atn'cephalus, would any one cite the same insect as 

 the metojiocephalus of Stephens ? 



The fact that by the alteration of a single letter the hybrid Biurus can be transferred 

 into the joure-breed Diurus is at first sight misleading. It looks like a very simple case 

 of correcting a mis-spelt name. But in truth it is much more than this. To convert 

 Biurus into Diurus, an operation is performed precisely analogous and equivalent to the 

 conversion of atricephalus into melanocephalus. Melanocephalus is not an emendation 

 of the old name ; it is a new name. So Diui'us is not an emendation of Biurus ; it is a 

 new name. 



I hold it to be incorrect to cite it as Diurus of Motschulsky. It is the Diurus of the 

 ' Catalogus Coleopterorum,' dating only from 1809. So Ditoma, substituted by lUiger for 

 the Bitoma of Herbst, is incorrectly cited as Ditoma of Herbst. It is the Ditoma of 

 Illiger, and takes priority from 1800, and not from 1793. 



If (as for the present ai'gument is assumed) hybrid names are not to be retained, 

 I repeat that the proper treatment of such names is to reject them altogether. And such 

 is the practice, at least with siiecific names. For where the oldest specific name is a 

 hybrid, it is not attempted to make the name either wholly Greek or wholly Latin, but 

 the mongrel is cast out, and the next oldest name is taken in its stead. 



If Diurus had not been already in use, it would of course have been open to 

 Gemminger and Harold, when discarding Biurus, to adopt Diurus as a new name 

 for the Telephorid genus. But in selecting a new name, they were bound to select 

 one that was not pre-occupied. When re-naming the genus in 1809, they were 

 debarred from taking a name ai^plied to another genus in 1802. 



In truth I suspect that when they changed Biurus into Diurus they had forgotten the 

 existence of Dejean's genus. Lacordaire (Gen. des Coleop. iv. 308) remarks of Biurus 

 " nom hybride, et qui dans sa forme reguliere (Diurus) a deja ete employe pour des 

 Curculionides ; " whence I infer that in 1857 the Professor held the pre-occupation of 

 Diurus was a bar to the alteration inti'oduced by Gemminger and Harold in 1869. 



The answer to Mr. Pascoe's question, in my opinion, clearly is, that the name Diurus 

 properly belongs to the genus of Bi-enthidfe ; that the alteration of Biurus in 1869 does 

 not relate back to 1852 so as to oust the Diurus of 1862 ; and if Biurus is not retained, 

 some unoccupied name must be found for the genus of Teleplioridse. 



In conclusion, I beg to present the advocates of priority-at-any -price with the following 



