XIX 
Another cause of trouble is the citation of works by their titles, in- 
stead of by their references. I am sorry to say that my friend Reuter is 
the worst offender in this, especially in quoting his own valuable papers. 
For instance, selecting at random, “Ferr. Hem. Lig. p. ....” is cited in- 
stead of “Ferr. 1874 Ann. Mus. Genov. VI. p.....”; “Reut. Gen. Cim. Eur.” 
instead of “Reut. 1875 Bih. Svensk. Vet. Handl. 3. no. 1”; “Reut. Hem. 
Gymn. Scand.’ instead of “Reut. 1875 Act. Soc. Faun. Fenn. 1”; “Fieb. 
Crit. Phytoc. p. 1”, instead of “Fieb. 1858 Wien. Ent. Mon. IL 289” and 
so forth. Stal’s “Enumeratio Hemipterorum’’ should be cited as “Stal.... 
Svensk. Vet. Handl..... dias 
** ‘ cS 
The following points, more or less controverted, are now brought up. 
1. St&l’s “Hemiptera Africana” vol. I. is dated 1864, but Mayr asserts ’) 
that it was not published till 1865. Stal tacitly admits this by never 
refuting the charge, and by sinking some of his own names. 
2. According to the covers of the parts, the dates of Fieber’s ,Die 
Europiischen Hemiptera“ are: 
Heft 1 (pp. 1 —-112) 1860. 
Heft 2 and 3 (pp. 113 304) 1861. 
Heft 4 (pp. 305—444 and HI—VI) 1861. 
My friend Prof. Handlirsch informs me, however, that the actual 
dates are: 
Heft 1 (Bogen 1—7) f 
Heft 2 and 3 (Bogen sat November tecC 
Heft 4 (Bogen 21-30) April 1861. 
3. I possess only separates of Jakovlev’s Russian papers and I am 
uncertain of the real dates of many. The “Bull. Soc. Nat. Moscou’” is (if 
I recollect rightly) published in two volumes a year, of separate pagination, 
each volume consisting of two parts. These have been much confused by 
many authors, and have not been elucidated by Oshanin recently, so that, 
as there are no particulars on my copies, I have cited only the year and the 
volume. The dates given by Oshanin rarely agree 2) with those cited by 
Lethierry and Severin, and sometimes neither agree- with the memoranda 
on my own copies. 
4. Reuter has accepted those of Goeze’s names which were properly 
formed 3), but Sherborn has disallowed them 4), as not being consistently 
binomial. I have, however, I think, shown that Sherborn’s decision should 
be reconsidered, and these names considered valid By 
5. I would also call attention to the note published 6) on the author- 
ship of the first part of the “Hope Catalogue’, as it concerns the Cimicidae. 
1) 1865 Verh. zool. bot. Ges. Wien XV. 429—30; 1866 Novara Exp. Zool. 
II (1). 33. 
e 2) 1906 Hamer. 3ooa. Mys. Ierep6., XI, Uputom. I—LXXIV and 1—393 
(, Verzeichnis der palaearktischen Hemipteren‘). 
8) 1778 Entom. Beytriige II. 1—346. 
4) 1902 Index Animalium I. 
5) 1908 A. S. E. Belg. LIL 6—8. 
6) 1907 A. S. E. Belg. LI. 310. a. 
a addy Hehe 9 
