publication of " Jurinean " Genera of Hymenoptera. 353 



no scruple about accrediting Linnean names to Fabricius. 

 Similarly, when in the same work Jurine meets some 

 criticisms on his method (neuration, etc.) made by Klug 

 in 1803 with the retort that he had never published any- 

 thing at that time " sur ce sujet," we need not consider 

 whether or no he here disclaims authorship of the Genera, 

 for (a) " ce sujet " surely means the neuration-characters, 

 not the names of Genera ; (6) it was quite true that the 

 remarks on the merits of these characters in the Erlangen 

 Articles were published by Panzer and not by Jurine; 

 and (c) if, as a fact, and as " authorship " is now defined, 

 Jurine was author of the names, no subsequent disclaimer 

 can affect the situation in any way. If he was the author, 

 he was the author, and no more needs to be said ! 



It is probable that Panzer was not the only colleague 

 who had a sight of Jurine's work in its earliest form. But 

 of this we have no positive proof. It is clear that Klug 

 knew something about it in 1803 ; but he says nothing that 

 he might not have learnt from the Erlangen publication 

 in 1801. 



Several allusions to Jurinean names are made by Latreille 

 in Paris before the Nouvelle Methode had appeared, as 

 for instance when he mentions " Astatus dans le sens 

 de Jurine et de Panzer " — the order in which he cites 

 these names suggesting that he accredited the Genus to 

 Jurine rather than to Panzer. So much, however, and 

 also his attributing the name Urocere (meaning Urocerus) 

 to " notre collegue Jurine," may merely indicate that he 

 had seen certain Figures and descriptions in Fn. Ins. Germ., 

 viz. 83-12 (pubhshed in 1801) and 85-10 (Astatus on the 

 Plate, Urocerus in the Text), 11, and 12 (pubhshed in 

 1801). But he says, also, and this implies more knowledge 

 of the matter, that " ce savant " (i. e. Jurine) " pubhera 

 incessament une nouvelle methode " (sic) " sur les hymeno- 

 pteres, qui ne pourra manquer d'etre bien accueilee." 

 And in 1807 (the year when the Nouvelle Methode at last 

 appeared) Latreille remarks, as he finishes Vol. 3 of his 

 Gen. Crust. Ins., that just as the first part of his own book 

 was going to press he received from his " friend " (ami) 

 Jurine a copy of the magnificent new work just published 

 at Geneva by the latter. (Which should be noted inter 

 alia because it proves that, of these two works pubhshed 

 both in 1807- — the Nouvelle Methode and Gen. Crust. Ins. 

 Vol. 3 — the former was first pubhshed !) 



