30 



erate eueiny, for iu most iustances I find the germ is devoured, rendering the beans 

 as worthless for seed as they are for food. 



We have for some time intended to discuss this matter in print, but 

 in the meantime Dr. Lintner in his Seventh Eeport on the Insects of 

 New York has gone quite fully into the matter in his usual thorough 

 and characteristic manner, and has republished Fitch's letter to the 

 secretary of the society above mentioned. 



Dr. Lintner doubts the propriety of adopting Say's names for this 

 Bean Weevil, and although he writes, under protest. Say's name obso- 

 lefns at the head of his article, thus following the nomenclature pre- 

 sented in Dr. Horn's Eevision of the Bruchidae, he is nevertheless of 

 the opinion that custom, and even the rules of nomenclature, would 

 justify us in writing Bruchus fahw Fitch. We are so fiiUy in accord 

 with his views that we quote the following paragraph: 



It would better accord with custom and rules of nomenclature if, instead of 

 clinging pertinaciously to Say's name in the belief that we know the insect to which 

 it was applied^ that it be rejected on the ground of its having been accompanied 

 with merely a definition — without description such as leaves no room for reasonable 

 doubt. Such rejection has been repeatedly made, as notably with scores of Walker's 

 "species." In that event — as the description of Dr. Fitch unmistakably indicates 

 our Bean Weevil, aud as it has priority of and fully accords with the varicornis of 

 LeConte, the/afccc of Riley, and the obsoletus of Horn — "ohsoletus Say" would give 

 place to fabce Fitch. 



The reasons which we gave in 1871 for considering the Bean Weevil 

 distinct from obsoletus seem to us as good to-day as they did then, 

 and we have since obtained substantial indirect evidence against Dr. 

 Horn's claim. Say mentions having found obsoletus on a species of 

 Astragalus from which he also obtained Apion segnipes. We have 

 always believed that obsoletus would be rediscovered, and have for years 

 sought to ascertain more of the food plants of our Bruchidse. Now in 

 Mr. Schwarz's collection we have a Bruchus in connection with this 

 very Apion segnipes on Teplirosia virginiana near Washington, and this 

 Bruchus agrees in size and all other characteristics fiilly with Say's 

 description of obsoletus, and further corresponds, as we distinctly 

 recollect, with the specimen thus marked which we referred to as hav- 

 ing seen in Walsh's old collection, thus indicating that the sj)ecies 

 occurs likewise in the Mississippi Valley. With all due respect to 

 authority, therefore, we think that the case against our Bean Weevil 

 being obsoletus is sufficiently made out, and that we must not follow 

 Dr. Horn in his rather arbitrary conclusion. In point of fact, as all 

 who have gone over the descriptions carefully will admit, obtectus Say, 

 which precedes obsoletus in the descriptions, is more plainly referable 

 to our Bean Weevil. Under the strict law of priority, therefore, our 

 Bean Weevil should be written Bruchus obtectus Say. 



In reference to the European nomenclature of our Bean Weevil, 

 Baudi, in his monograph of the European Bruchidne (Deutsch. Ent. 



