374 Rev. F. D. Morice and J. H. Diirraiit on the 



\mc *^Cryptvs F. Syst. Piez. pp. ix, 70-92 no. 10 sp. 1-103 

 (1S04); Crt. Br, Ent. 14. expl. PI. 668 (1837); Vrck. Bull. US. 

 Nat. Mus. 83. 38, 185 (1914)— Tyiie: viduatorius F. (Genus?)]. 



The name Cnjptus Jrn. was first applied to the second 

 Fabrician section of Terithredo L., viz., " Antennis in- 

 arliculatis " — five of its species however do not possess 

 this character and cannot therefore be types of Crypt us Jrn. 

 In the Nouv. Meth. Hym. Jurine omits these, as also two 

 other species which are South American. 



But, before Jurine's Gryptus was published, Lamarck, in 

 the month " Pluviose An. IX " (= January 1801), had 

 already selected a species of this group as the Type of 

 Tenthredo L. — Cryptus Jrn. can therefore only be regarded 

 as a synonym of Tenthredo L., as defined by Lamarck. 

 Although itself a synonym, the publication of this name 

 Cryptus, in 1801, makes illegal the action of Fabricius in 

 applying (Syst. Piez. 1804) the same name to a totally 

 different group of Hymenoptera. 



Cryptus F. (1804) is therefore a homonym of Cryptus 

 Jrn. (1801) and the nomenclature of the Ichneumomdae 

 will require considerable revision in consequence. 



Jurine proposes to restrict Tenthredo to the section 

 " Antennis clavatis,''' but Lamarck had already (January 

 1801) cited as Type for Tenthredo a species not belonging 

 to that group, viz. rosae L.,F. What was this rosae% 

 There is strong reason to think that Linne confused 

 under the name rosae two, if not more, quite different 

 insects, viz. Reaumur's " Saw-fly of the Rose," in which 

 the antennae are not clavate, but inarticulate (" exarticu- 

 latis "), and Athaliarosae Auctt., in which also the antennae 

 are not clavate, but 9 to 10- jointed (" septemnodiis " in 

 Linne's classification). 



In the Systema Naturae (editions 10, and 12), and also 

 in Fauna Suecica, Linne describes his species as having 

 seven-jointed antennae, and at Burlington House the only 

 specimen ticketed in Linne's own hand as " rosae,'' with 

 a reference to the 10th edition, is a specimen of Athalia 

 rosae Auctt., but with this insect are placed, without 

 labels, specimens of Reaumur's species, and the well- 

 known passages and figures of Reaumur, etc., are refen'cd 

 to by Linne himself in his synonymy. 



Authors {e.g, von Dalla Torre, in his Catalogue) fre- 

 quently recognise both an Athalia rosae L. and a Hylotoma 

 rosae L., which, as shown by their references to Syst. Nat., 



