Xi 
I think fit, actually renaming my Anisops edepol , tA! Kirkaldyanus”, a very 
left-handed compliment! Kirkaldy schmiickt mit Vorliebe seine neuen un- 
ansehnlichen Wasserwanzen mit allerlei schénen Namen aus der Mythologie ete., 
wie wir sie sonst nur bei den Tagesschmetterlingen finden). Dies ist ja 
Geschmacksache, aber wenn er eine Anisops-Art edepol nennt, so werden die 
erlaubten Grenzen tiberschritten. Wenn Interjektionen und eidliche Be- 
teuerungen als Artnamen akzeptiert werden . . I have only to remark 
that Dr. Bergroth can never have seen an Anisops alive in its natural ele- 
ment, when he stigmatizes it as “unansehnlich”. 
NB. 2. Proper names in (1) ¢ or #i, (2) ae or tae, are to be considered 
identical; (3) v and u, (4) i and j, (5) o¢ and ae, ought not to be con- 
sidered distinct. On the other hand, & should be regarded as distinct from c. 
NB. 3. In this Catalogue, the specific names have been adjusted, as 
far as possible, to agree with the supposed gender of their genus. But I am 
strongly of the opinion — which I put into practice in my first contribution 
to the “Fauna Hawaiiensis’’ — that genera should be treated as indeclinable, 
and the specific name consequently unchangeable. For instance, in trans- 
ferring “Lecanium nigrum’? to Coccus, I termed it “Coccus nigrum” ?). 
There is really a great deal of humbug displayed in certain quarters 
over this matter. As it is, there are certain names over which authors 
habitually split, as for instance, Ancyrosoma. The type is Cimer albo- 
lineatus Fabricius. In my opinion the correct way to cite this species would 
be “Ancyrosoma albolineatus’’. 
Many authors maintain that Ancyrosoma is a Greek compound, and 
neuter, and therefore the combination should be “A. albolineatum’’! However, 
Ancyrosoma is not Greek, but a latinized form, and according to present rules, 
generic names are supposed to be latin, so that a third class would term it 
“A. albolineata”! We see therefore what a farce the whole question has 
become. 
I commenced the final MSS. of this Catalogue in what I consider the 
rational way, but, as the present rules profess to ground the nomenclature 
on latin, and because of the “weaker brethren*, I have treated the genera 
as possessing gender; however, against, I fear, my better judgment. 
4. The fact that the names of a genus and of one of its species are 
identical, does not invalidate either. It is, indeed, desirable that the type- 
species should bear the name of the genus. 
NB. 1. This is another debatable point, but the rejection of either 
of such a pair of names is a violation of the rule of priority, the names 
belonging to different categories and so not clashing. 
NB. 2. The use of typus or typicus for a specific name is very un- 
desirable. A new genus may be proposed, with a type so-named; later on 
it is found to be synonymous with an _ earlier genus and consequently the 
1) Bergroth forgets that one of the names of the Goddess of Love is applied 
to a worm, to mention only one instance! | 
3 *) “It is no essential part of natural history to discover that Melicerta is mascu- 
ine, Jno feminine, Callisoma neuter; that planus and plana are adjectives, but nanus 
and nana substantives; or that you ma longi igni 
. l 3 y say longimana, to signify long-handed 
although mana in Latin means, not a hand, but a goddess or a sponge.” "Stabbing | 
1905 Linn. Soc. [London] Journ. Zool. XXIX. 335. 
