NEW BRITISH SPECIES, ETC., IN 1866. 119 



1-easoii for following Thomson — viz., a wish to avoid the 

 clashing of two such names as ononis and ononidis in the 

 same genus^-I presumed that that acute author had suf- 

 ficient grounds (which, indeed, he was not hound to pub- 

 lish) for subverting the older appellation. Admitting, how- 

 ever (a view with which Mr. Sharp does not concur), that 

 it would be desirable to avoid this confusion, it would ap- 

 pear that Boheraan's description of A. Bohema?ini, which 

 name Thomson adopts, is not sufficiently recognisable, and 

 that Boheman himself must have been anything but clear 

 about its relations with Gyllenhal's species. Any difficulty 

 on this point Tiiomson apparently proposes to meet simply 

 by his identification of Boheman's type ; but the corrobo- 

 ration of faulty descriptions by examination of specimens 

 is not universally allow^ed. Boheman's name being thus 

 open to objection, and Gyllenhal's liable to deposition (inde- 

 pendently of its coming within the idem so?ians canon) on 

 account of its omission of the male character (teste the 

 Homaloia umhonata-vicina instance), there remains an- 

 other alternative in the A. owomco/aof Bach, which is given 

 as a synonym to ononidis, and which Mr. Crotch informs 

 me was named expressly to avoid the confusion as to ononis 

 and ononidis. 



Strophosomus melanogrammus, Forster; G. R. Crotch, 

 Cat. Brit. Col. ed. 2. 

 Mr. Crotch (loc. cit. p. 136) restores Forster's name for 

 the insect subsequently described as coryli by Fabricius • 

 and expresses his opinion that all that author's names ought 

 to be restored carefully, both for English and American 

 species. 



