86 
another generic name of prior date. I have thought, therefore, that a short notice, 
calling attention to the enormous evil involved in such changes, both as to the number 
of names that would have to be cancelled, and to the uncertainty as to what should be 
considered to be too near an approach to the older name, would be desirable. In such 
closely sounding words as Cercus and Circus, Ectinus and Hetimus, Sypalus and 
Sipalus, there could be no doubt; whether, having regard to our peculiar pronuncia- 
tion, such names as Lina by the side of Lena, Centor by Sintor, or Dignomus by 
Dinomus would be admissible, would not be a question out of England. Few, too, 
would have any difficulty about Pteroclus and Pterocles, Drapetes and Drapetis, 
Hephialtus and Ephialtes, Spondylis and Spondylus, but some may hesitate as to 
Lema because of Lemur, Harpalus because of Hapalus or Colotes because of Calotes ? 
Then would no one be found to assert that Hurops was too close to Euops, or Blax to 
Blaps, or Astycus to Astacus? Hyperion has been found too near Hyphereon.* 
Should we not also reject Tychius because of Trichius, Frixus because of Phrictus, 
Typhea because of Tiphia? M.James Thomson ignores Desmocerus because of 
Desmoderus, Orihostoma because of Orthosoma, Aphies because of Aphis. But com- 
pare Thysia to Thyrsia, Frea to Phea, Nicias to Nysius, Alara to Hilara, and by the 
saine standard we should reject them too. Then there are many names that, owing 
to a radically different spelling, may not have struck us as being similar in sound, 
such, for instance, as Allesia and Halyzia (as well as Alysia), Sitona and Cetonia, 
Lichas and Lycus, Enema and Anema, Cyrtus and Syrtis, &c. One great authority 
considers all names as practically identical which only vary in the termination. Thus 
Ammobius is sunk because of Ammobia, while to replace it we have Ammophtorus, 
notwithstanding that there is already an Ammophorus, and in the same family too. 
Following up this rule, what is to become of Dromius after Dromia, Pachyta after 
Pachytos, Mycetea after Mycetes, Pogonus after Pogonias, and so on? What are the 
advantages to be derived from such changes? Ornithologists have no difficulty in 
using Pica and Picus, Otis and Otus, &c. It is bad enough to have to alter the 
names that are absolutely identical, and they are more numerous, I think, than is 
generally imagined. It will be seen that I have entirely confined myself to the Cole- 
optera, as being better known, in the names I have quoted that will require to be can- 
celled, if the principle I contend against should be adopted. A word or two as to 
making slight alterations to render, I presume, names more classical. This, I think, 
ought not to be done except when some very gross error has been committed, as in the 
celebrated Spavius case. Dr. Kraatz has just used the word Melarachnica avowedly 
because the more correct form would be too long. On the other hand, Mr. Crotch, in 
his ‘Catalogue,’ changes Hmus of Leach to Emys, but Leach, probably, very well 
knew that this form of the word had been already appropriated to a genus of tortoises. 
Mr. Crotch, therefore, must either coin a new word or go back to the old one. Is 
there anything but confusion likely to follow such alterations ?” 
Prof. Westwood thought it unadvisable to change generic names on the ground 
discussed by Mr. Pascoe, or indeed on any ground except the precise identity of the 
two appellations. He had, thirty years ago, compiled a catalogue of all the generic 
* Prof. Westwood changed the first of these names to Campylocnemis, under 
the idea that it had been previously used; Mr. Macleay’s genus, however, was 
Hyphereon. 
a 
