BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON THE HEMIPTEKA. 305 



has evaded the real points at issue, and merely refers to the 

 former note in '• Nature,' to which I had raised what were, to me 

 at least, valid objections. 



As I had not at the time of my receipt of the * Entomologist ' 

 for April a copy of the 12th edition of the ' Systema ' (I possess 

 only the 10th and 13th), it was necessary to delay my reply. It 

 now appears, as will be seen later, that the 12th edition does 

 not aid in the solution at all. As this supposed "law" vitally 

 concerns a large number of Linnean genera in all orders, and as 

 it has not been even mentioned in a considerable number of 

 monographs and revisions of insects including Linnean genera,* 

 I trust the Editor will allow it to be thrashed out thoroughly. 



The points raised by Mr. Blanford are : — 



(1) That Linne specially indicated (in the ' Philosophia 

 Botanica ' (1751)) that officinal species were to be considered as 

 the types of plant genera. 



(2) This is to be applied to Zoology from 1758. 



(3) This principle overrides all others, for type fixation. 



(4) The reason for lectulariiis being fixed as type of Cimex is 

 explained in the 12th edition of the ' Systema.' 



(5) That Clinocoris, Fallen, is a synonym of " Acanthia." 

 In reply, I would again say that : — 



(1 & 2) Linne mentions nothing of all this in the 10th edition 

 of the * Systema,' the starting point of zoological nomenclature. 

 He himself has not carried out this rule,! and it was disregarded 

 by his immediate pupils. 



(3) There is another fundamental principle, to which I 

 believe a greater consequence should obviously be paid, viz. 

 that the type-species must agree with the original generic de- 

 scription. It is surely ridiculous to cite an apterous species as 

 the type of a genus, part of whose diagnosis mentions without 

 modification the presence of four wings. 



(4) Mr. Blanford declares that the 12th edition of the 

 * Systema' ought to silence my doubts. The following is what 

 is therein stated (tom. i. pars. 2, p. 715): — "Declaratur htec 

 species nunquam elytris s. alis, sed semper apteruna, Larvse aut 

 PupsB forma persistit, quod singulare ; at in Carniolia volatilis 

 etiam occurrat? confer Scopoli." 



Now what has this to do with making lectulariiis the type of 

 Cimex ? It does not make it any the more conformable to the 

 generic diagnosis, and in any case the 12th edition can have no 



- I have not seen any entomological works entertaining this principle 

 published within the last twenty-five years, but, as I do not pretend to have 

 examined more than a restricted area of entomological literature, I have 

 made the statement in a restricted manner. 



f It will be suflBcient to cite Empis, Conops, Nepa, Ttpula [rectius 

 Tippiila] , Ichneumon, &c., as examples of classical names misapplied, or 

 probably misapplied, by Linne. 



ENTOM. DECEMBER, 1905. 2 C 



