438 Eev. F. D. Morice and Mr. J. H. Durrant's 



Two other gratuitous and undesirable " emendations " 

 of old authors' names may here be noted for rejection ! 



(1) Dahlbom in introducing his generic name Cypho- 

 nonyx derives it from " yycpoov " [sic !] "furcifer " and 6Vv£ 

 unguis. Therefore W. A. Schulz has " corrected " it to 

 the truly hideous form " Chyphononyx " ! But there is 

 not, and (philologically speaking) ought not to be, any 

 such word in the Greek language as " %v(p<x>v " ; — the 

 phonetically correct form is xvcpcov, and no other is em- 

 ployed by Greek authors, or recognised by lexicographers. 

 Accordingly Cyphononyx {xvcpcov-ovv^) is at least a possible 

 name; though a real Greek would probably have disliked 

 the jingling reiteration (-on -on), and perhaps (remember- 

 ing Homer's " jliojvvxei; Innoi ") would have cut the word 

 down to xv(p&vv£ (Cyphonyx). But, for all practical pur- 

 poses, Cyphononyx is good enough, and there is no real 

 reason for altering it in any way. " Chijphononyx" on the 

 other hand, is an absolute monstrosity and on no account 

 to be adopted. 



(2) Because the Greek noun tzqicqv has for its Inflection- 

 stem not nolo- but TiQiov- (or sometimes apparently 

 TiQicov-) v. Dalla Torre " corrects " Priocnemis of Schiodte 

 to " Prionocnemis" But the form Priocnemis is completely 

 justified by classical analogies. From axjucov (stem dxjiwv-) 

 we get in actual Greek not axjaovo-derov but ax^io-Qerov ; 

 and from xtcov (stem xiov-) both xiovo-xqavov and xio- 

 xqavov (the latter being, on the whole, more " classical " 

 than the former). Neither " Prio-cnemis," then, nor 

 " Prionocnemis " can be said to be an impossible form. 

 Of the two, " Priocnemis " seems slightly better sup- 

 ported by actual precedents, and it is certainly more 

 euphonious. It should therefore be restored, and there 

 was never any reason for objecting to it. 



Pages 411-412. In June 1909 (Ann.-Mag. NH. (8 s.) 

 3. p. 484) Mr. Rowland E. Turner, after examination of 

 the type in Banks Coll. of Tiphia variegata F., announced 

 its identity with the Palarus flavipes Pz., Auctt. Assum- 

 ing this to be correct, the name variegata F. must be 

 employed, having priority over auriginosus Eversm., and 

 also over the otherwise invalid * flavipes Pz., Auctt. 



Page 417, line 16. In treating communis Auctt. as a 

 synonym of annulata L. we were following Alfken who 

 (in Zeitschr. fiir Hym. und Dipt. 1902, p. 88) accepted 

 Forster's identification of the Linnean species. Ny lander, 



