404 Rev. F. D. Morice and J. H. Durrant on the 



cited quinquecindus F., associating with it a doubtful 

 species "canipestris? F." Von Dalla Torre treats cam- 

 pestris (L.) F. as a synonym of mystacea, but most authors 

 have used the name for a different though closely allied 

 species. If von Dalla Torre is right Arpactus Jrn. and 

 Ceropales Ltr. were both founded on the same two species, 

 and as Ceropales was not validated until after the publica- 

 tion of Arpactus, the latter must hold the field. 



In 1804, Latreille (Nouv. Diet. HN. 24) specified Evania 

 maculata F. as the Type of Ceropales, and proposed Gorytes 

 as a new genus with the Type Mellinus quinquecinctus F. — • 

 it is therefore evident that Ceropales Ltr. [1796 MN.] 

 (1802) = Gorytes Ltr. (1804) the Type of both being the 

 same species quinquecinctus F. — another synonym with 

 the same Type is Hoplisus Lep. (1832). 



In 1807, Jurine (Nouv. Meth. Hym.) added several 

 species to his genus Arpactus, figuring one of these {Arpactus 

 formosus) and remarking " M. Latreille avait dabord donne 

 aux insectes de ce genre le nom de Ceropales qu'il a change 

 dans la suite contre celui de Goryte.'" Most recent authors, 

 supposing that Gorytes was the oldest valid name for 

 mystaceus, etc., have adopted it, but have still retained 

 Arpactus (or Harpactus) in a restricted sense for another 

 group which includes the Arpactus formosus figured by 

 Jurine in Nouv. Meth. Hym. 1807 (which however was not 

 one of the original exponents of Arpactus Jrn. 1801). But 

 Handlirsch, who is the chief authority on this question, 

 does not consider the differences between the groups of 

 mystaceus, formosus, etc., to be generic or even subgeneric, 

 and places them all in one genus, which he calls Gorytes. 

 Of the original exponents of Arpactus 1801 (mystaceus L., 

 F., and quinquecinctus F.), one, mystaceus, belongs to the 

 division now commonly known as " Gorytes Ltr. {sens, 

 strict.),'' the other to Hoplisus Lep. If these are to be 

 maintained as genera, or subgenera, the name Arpactus 

 could be limited to either of them, since it contained an 

 exponent of each, but not to the group oi formosus, whereas 

 the name Ceropales Ltr. (= Gorytes Ltr.) could only be 

 applied to the section containing its original Type (i. e. to 

 Hoplisus Lep.). 



A further difficulty has been created by an extraordinary 

 lapse of memory of Latreille, for after pubhshing quinque- 

 cinctus as a Ceropales in 1802, he again published it in 1804 

 under the name Gorytes, giving maculata as the Type of 



