LITHONOMA. 275 



"cincta, 119. C. [Chrysoinela] saltatoria, nigra, elytris viridi- 

 ameis, margine punctisque duobus albis." 



The descriptions given by both, these authors are not only accurate, 

 but are quite inapplicable to any other species that we know of ; by 

 one of them the locality also is correctly given. And the works in 

 which these descriptions were published, dating (Fab. Spec. Inscc.) 

 a.d. 1781, 1787, and 1789, have incontestably the priority to the 

 sixth volume of Olivier's ' Entomologie,' which appeared in 1808, 

 and to Fabricius's ' System. Eleut.,' which was published a.d. 1801. 



One source, probably, of the confusion may be traced to an apparent 

 mistake by Schonherr, in his ' Synon. Insect.' (1806 and subsequent 

 years), who, although Fabricius speaks of liis Galeruca cincta di- 

 stinctly as " saltatoria," leaves this species in the genus proper of 

 Galeruca (!) (marginella being transferred to Illiger's group of 

 Halticas). 



Another cause appears to be the fact that Olivier (as it seems) de- 

 scribed the same insect twice under two different names, — as "cincta" 

 in the ' Encycl. Method.' (following the proper Fabrician nomencla- 

 ture), and also as " marginella " in his ' Entomologie.' This latter 

 name, adopted also by Fabricius (System. Eleut., 1801), was hence- 

 forth adopted by Illiger and subsequent writers, — the prior name 

 " cincta " having been either lost sight of, or sunk as a synonym. 



In seeking to form an opinion as to which of the two names has 

 the greater claim, we have probably little difficulty in arriving at the 

 following conclusions : — 



1. That " cincta " (see above, extracts from the Encyclope'die, iv. 

 p. 106 ; and from Fab. Mantissa Insec. i. 76) and " marginella " 

 (see descriptions of insect under this name by Allard and others) 

 have been both adopted with reference to the same insect. 



2. That " cincta " has, in point of time, distinctly the priority, being 

 published in 1781 and 1787, — " marginella " appearing for the first 

 time in the ' Systema Eleut.' of Fabricius, published in 1801. 



3. That since the publication of Illiger's work (1807) the name 

 " marginella" has been universally adopted, and the namo cincta 

 universally ignored, or merely referred to (as by Marseul and Foudras) 

 as a synonym. 



The simple question then arises, Which has the greater claim ? 

 the universal consent of recent authors and catalogues, or the clear 

 priority in point of time ? 



To such an inquiry, " universal consent " will clearly reply, that 

 (the description of the species being sufficient and unmistakeable) 

 that name that has the distinct priority in point of time ought to 



t2 



