BLACKBURN AND SHarP—On Hawaiian Coleoptera. 209 
TT: 
SYSTEMATIC CATALOGUE OF THE COLEOPTERA OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 
By tHe Rev. T. BLACKBURN anv D. SHARP. 
This catalogue comprises the name of each species of the order Coleoptera that 
has been recorded, so far as Mr. Blackburn and myself have been able to discover, 
as occurring in the Hawaiian Islands; it also contains such information as Mr. 
Blackburn is able to give at present as to habits and habitat, and frequently as to 
the months of the year in which the species has been met with; as regards this 
latter point, Mr. Blackburn has not thought it necessary to give or even to preserve 
minute records, on the ground, as he informs me, ‘‘ that in the uniform climate 
and temperature for which the Hawaiian Islands are remarkable, most of the species 
do not apparently occur with much regularity at any particular time of the year, 
but appear in successive broods at irregular intervals.” 
Each species is recorded under the name by which it was first described, and a 
reference is given to the work and page of the work where the description will be 
found. Only such synonymy is given as is specially connected with the Oceanic 
fauna. 
A systematic arrangement is adopted nearly in conformity with that of the 
great Munich Catalogue of Coleoptera, and the reference appended to the generic 
name refers also to this catalogue; as this latter reference is in pursuance of a 
course not usually adopted by zoologists, it is only proper that I should make a 
brief statement on this point. 
A considerable difference of opinion prevails at present as to what course 
should be pursued in citing a name and reference to the genus. Some prefer to 
refer to the author who first described or defined the genus; while others— 
looking to the fact that any genus in the lapse of time undergoes great changes— 
consider we should quote the author who defined the genus in the sense in which 
the individual now writing uses it. The first of these courses is, it must be admitted, 
practically of little value except to bibliographers ; while the second is unfortunately 
to a considerable extent impracticable, for the reason that a genus is made what it 
isat any given moment, not by actual definition, but by definition plus addition and 
minus subtraction. A defines a genus, say, as ‘‘ Chorazus,” making it to consist of 
ten species; B adds another five species, still calling the agregate Chorazus ; C de- 
ser’}es an allied new genus, say Dyclomus, which consists of certain insects, plus 
two of A’s and one of B’s Chorazi. E now coming to the subject finds that 
Chorus, as in actual use, is not the same as it was to either A or B; while C, who 
: 22 
