﻿OP THE STATE ENTOMOLOGIST. 17 



a constant chopping and changing in generic nomenclature (much of 

 it of questionable warrant or advantage), and it is ofttimes preferable, 

 especially in popular works, to anchor to the more comprehensive and 

 better known generic terms, instead of confounding the reader by the 

 more recent changes. There is nothing to prevent any author from 

 erecting new -genera, but whether a proposed genus is in the end by 

 common consent adopted or not will depend on the value of the char- 

 acters on which it is founded. Our best authorities ignore the more 

 recent divisions, and LeOonte writes me : '' Let us set our faces against 

 the adoption of the multitude of genera, which even the founders fail 

 to sustain. * * * Let Polygramma^ Leptinotarsa^ Myocoryna^* 

 etc., never be mentioned amongst us." Thence, if we write Chrysomela 

 10-lineaia (Say), with Crotch, in his list of N. A. Coleoptera (1873), 

 we indicate that in our opinion the later divisions into which that 

 genus has been broken up, and which would include this species, are 

 not based on sufficiently important and distinctive characters; if we 

 write Doryi^liora lO-lineaia Say, we express our belief in the generic 

 value of the palpial characters. In either event no confusion will 

 ensue providing the authority for the species is given, and the Ameri- 

 can entomologist does no violence either to good sense or propriety 

 by designating the insect as it was at first described, i. e., Doryphora 

 lO-lirieaia. It is because of the present unsettled conditon of ento- 

 mological nomenclature that the custom yet prevails of attaching the 

 abbreviated authority to the names of insects, as the only sure way 

 to express our meaning and obviate all confusion as to the species 

 intended. 



I have been led to these synonymical remarks by an article by 

 M. E. A. Carriere, which, had it occurred in a less important journal 

 than the Revue HorticoU.^ of which he is editor, would not deserve 

 notice. With an arrogance in keeping with the superficial knowledge 

 of the subject he displays, M. Carriere undertakes to read the Ameri- 

 cans an entomological lesson, teach them how to correctly designate 

 this potato enemy and "cut short the confusion" which he takes it 

 for granted exists on the subject in this country. As the idea is 

 altogether too prevalent among European writers that American 

 naturalists are a set of know-nothings, I shall briefly notice this article 

 of M. Carriere's to show how ridiculously pragmatical he appears in 



• Even if the characters given by Stal are ever considered by authors generally of generic value, 

 the name 3/?/ocori/na could not be emplo3'ed, as it is preoccupied by a genus, in the same family of 

 Chrysomelians, founded by Dejeau (■( 'at. 3d edit., p. 42S) ; and if our potato-beetle is to lie known by 

 any subgencric title I Avould propose that of Thlibocoryna. 



tSubsciiueutly noticed in several European periodicals, and republished in the JoHma7 d' Jirii- 

 culture Pratique, and in the Bulletin of the Soc. Centralc d' Afjr. dii Dep. del' Htrault, 1874, pp. 84-5. 

 ER— 2 



