direction, that any one might suppose the terminal portion to 

 be an amalgamation of three parts, nor would be convinced of 

 the illusion without a careful examination of tarsi obtained 

 from other specimens. But be this as it may, it cannot 

 materially affect my expressed opinion of Col. Motschulsky. 

 I never said that he was an expert anatomist, thougli I might 

 have thought that his knowledge of the subject was quite 

 equal to that of his contemporaries. I have said before that 

 T am not qualified to express an opinion of Col. Motschulsky's 

 proficiency in other sections of Coleoptera. I have said before, 

 and I say it again, that his knowledge of the Trlchopteryt.iia 

 exceeded that of all other Entomologists. 



A little farther on in his Review, Dr. JJohi'n remarks that the 

 name " Dohrnii," given by me to the Trick fascipennw of Halde- 

 man, cannot stand, because " by the author's own opinion 

 Trich. fuscipennis is a synonym, and as there is no like-named 

 species except the Ptiliuin fuscipenne, which dates from 1849, 

 and is thought by the author synonymic with Pt. Spencii. Also 

 Motschulsky's species Acratridtii hrunnqyennia, (Amer), Mat- 

 thews remarks "An T. Dohrnii par." The facts which Dr. 

 Dohrn has thus cited appear to me in themselves sufficient to 

 quash the name "fHscipemits" altogether. It is evident that 

 Professor Forster's Ptilium fmclpenne was anterior in date to 

 T. fuscipennis of Haldeman, it is also certain that the same 

 name had been applied to another species by (lillmeister, aud 

 recorded in p. 48 of his " Trichopterygia." If I had been able 

 to recognize that species 1 must of coui'se have retained its name. 

 But though I failed, some other author may succeed in doing so, 

 and its name may now be restored to the list Avithout creating 

 confusion. 



It ap})ears to me that the only safe basis of nomenclature is 

 to adhere closely to this rule, i.e., that when once a name has 

 been used to designate a certain insect, the same name cannot 

 subsequently be applied to any other species of the same seQ.tion. 

 I say section because genera are in their very essence changeable 

 terms, whoUy subject to the will of each separate author. If 

 therefore a specific name should merely be restricted to a genus 

 and might again be repeated in the genus next in succession, 

 endless changes of nomenclature would ensue, especially in n 



