6 Mr. A. Murray's Monogrnph of the (/emut Catops. 



The next author who went over the genus was Stephens. As 

 he tinallv left it in his Manual, it contains all Sjience's species, 

 besides five of his own, and throe which had been described by 

 l^Ir. Newman in the ' Kntoniological Magazine,' between the 

 conunencenicnt of the ap])earance of his 'Illustrations' and 

 the pviblication of his * ]Manual.' 



The following is the result of my examination of the species 

 standing named in his collection in the British Museum, viz, : — 



Ptomaphngus truncafus=C. sericcus, I'anz. {trwica/us, lllig.) 



vc/ux=vc/ux, Spencc. 



fiima/us =finn(ttus, Erich . 



H'afsuiii=fiimatus, Erich., and scitulus, Erich., mixed. 



a>iisoto))wiik'S=^(inisufomuides, Spencc. 



Wilkinii=]jr(eco.v, Erich. 



Catops nigricans = nigricans, Spcnce. 



sericca-=\ia\c variety of chrijsomcloidcs, Spcnce. 



trisiis=fusca, Erich. 



festinans, represented by two specimens of grandicoUis, 



Erich., and two of tristis, Erich. 



affinis = nigri(a, Erich. 



chrgsomeloides-=chrysomeloides, Spencc. 



Leachii, represented by two specimens of grandicollis, 



Erich., and two of trislis, Erich. 



Kirbii=roinndicuUis, Kellner. 



of Spence's description of it and his next sr|)ecies, Watsoni, shows that the 

 latter is what is now known asfmnatus, and that the former is most pro- 

 bablv scHulus, Erich. In his description of Watsoni Spencc says, "In 

 colour this species does not much ditfer from tlie preceding, but is fur- 

 nished with other characters strikingly distinctive. The antenna: are 

 shorter and thicker " (which is the case in the true fitmatus). He also 

 gives the last joint as pale, while he says nothing of this distinctive cha- 

 racter in describing the preceding species. The rest of the description 

 also corresponds with the view I have taken. I am perhaj)s wrong in 

 using the expression " fme fumatus." The true famatus should by the 

 rule of i)riority be what Spcnce had under his eye when he described it, 

 but I think we are getting out of all bounds in our stickling for priority. 

 If an author describes a species so loosely tiiat it cannot be recognized 

 from his description, so that subsequent authors misapply or ignore his 

 name, while on their part they give a recognizable description, I cannot see 

 on what ]>rineiple of justice or propriety we are to be called u[)on to hold 

 by the unreeogniaable name instead of the recognizable, nor why an author 

 (be he living or dead, or great or small) should be allowed to supplement 

 his inadequate description by a reference to the typical specimens in his 

 cabinet from which the descriptions were taken, — a practice now in vogue, 

 against which I take this opportunit}- to enter my protest. Notwith- 

 standing the claims of jiriority therefore, I do not propose to invert or 

 disturb the generally adopted names of fumatus and scitulus. I have 

 pointed out how the case obviously stands, and 1 leave to the advocates of 

 prioritv the responsibility of introducing the confusion to which I demur. 



