312 Nomenclalure of Genera cCr. in the OrlbatuIiV!. 



Dr. Oiulemans further says that the genus Cepheus ought 

 to be renamed, and the name of Kochia (sui^gcsted by him) 

 adopted instead, on tlie ground that C. latas, Koch, was the 

 type species, and that it behmnol to ani^ther genus, and that 

 Nicolet created a new genus C''/)heu.t, which fails because of 

 Kocli's priority. This does not appear to me to be a correct 

 statement of the facts. Koch did not attempt to make any 

 type; his Cepheus lotus and C. minutus were published at 

 the same time on loose sheets. Nicolet did not attempt to 

 make a new genus CepJieus, he expressly says that his genus 

 is Cepheus, Koch, but he divided it, creating a new genus 

 Tegeocranus, to which he carried his own species T. cephei- 

 forim's, which he sup|)osed, probably erroneously, to be the 

 same as Cepheus latus, Knch ; but the latter species is not 

 sufficiently well defined by Koch for anyone to say for certain 

 what it was, although there has been a desire by myself and 

 others to retain Koch's name for something, and it is not 

 imj)robable that the creature now called Tegeocranus Intus 

 may have been Koch's species; but this is uncertain. Koch 

 did not give any available type; Nicolet defined Koch's 

 genus better and divided it; his species are unmistakable. 

 The same observations answer the allegation that Nicolet's 

 genus Tegeocranus ought to be changed into Cepheus, as the 

 reasons are the same, except that Dr. Oudemans adds an 

 additional reason against the name of Tegeocranus being 

 sustained, viz. that Nicolet's ty{)e was his T. femoralis, which 

 is true, but that was so evidently a member of Koch's earlier 

 genus Carahodes that it was necessary to carry it to that 

 genus, leaving Nicolet's subtype T. cepheiformis, which he 

 carefully gives, as the existing type of Tegeocranus. 



Dr. Oudemans then says tliat Notaspis should be changed 

 into Eremceus, Koch, because Notaspis is founded on A'^arus 

 coleoptratus as a type; but, as 1 have pointed out above, this is 

 not any type at all, and it is absolutely uncertain to what 

 genus or family it belonged. Notaspis is a far older name 

 tiian Eremaus, and as portions were divided off, the old name 

 was left for a part by modern writers, which seems to be a 

 proper course. 



Finally, Dr. Oudemans says that the well-known and 

 universally accepted genus Aothrus, Koch (lHo5), must be 

 changed into Cumisia, because von Heyden in \&liS created a 

 genus c£ the latter name with Notaspis segnis, Hermann, as 

 type. There seems to me to be more to be said in favour of 

 tliis than of any of Dr. Oudemans's other proposals, because 

 N. segnis is usually included in the genus Nothrus; but some 

 acarologists have been of opinion that it should be the 

 type of a separate genus. If it be necessary to preserve 



