306 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



"say" in the matter ; either lectularius was or was not available 

 as type in 1758 ; if it was not (in 1758), nothing effected in 1766 

 could make it so. 



(5) I quite agree with Mr. Blanford that Clinocoris is a mere 

 synonym of " Acaiithia,'' but he does not say which '' Acanthia" \ 

 There are two, viz. Acanthia, Fabr., Latr. (otherwise known as 

 Salda), a valid genus ; and Acanthia, Fabr., Fall., type lectularius, 

 which is not valid ; Clinocoris is a synonym of the latter, and 

 therefore is, I think, available as a substitution for this invalid 

 Acanthia, Fallen. 



(B) Miscellaneous Notes. 



(a) In the fourth part of these notes (p. 79), I asked for in- 

 formation anent " Naucorimis." This has been kindly furnished 

 to me by Mr. Prout, and my MS. notes are confirmed. 



I think Mr. Sherborn is wrong in including Naucorinus, 

 Meuschen, as a valid generic term, as there is no diagnosis, no 

 species, no singular form, and it is almost certainly a lapsus 

 calami for Naucoris, Geoffroy, described sixteen years previously. 



The cit«^tion is " Notonectcs, Nepcs, Naiicorini, Cimices," and 

 the species-names mentioned are glauca, linearis, cinerea, grandis, 

 cimicoides, &c., of which the first belonged, at that date, to Noto- 

 necta, the next two to Nepa, and the fourth to Naucoris. I do 

 not think "Naucorinus" can even be cited as a synonym of 

 Naucoris. 



(b) In the fourth part of these papers (p. 7), for "19th Band" 

 of Herrich-Schaeffer, read "9th Band." 



(c) In the ' Entomologist' (1902, p. 316), I discussed the date 

 of publication of the text of the "Hemiptera" in Duperrey's 

 'Voyage of the Coquille.'* At that time I had not seen Sher- 

 born's paper on this matter in the Annals & Mag. Nat. Hist. (7), 

 vii. pp. 388-92 (1901). Sherborn cites the date, sec. Bibl. 

 Fran9., as 1831, but this notice must surely have been taken 

 from proof-sheets. 



For the 1838 date we have (1) Gu^rin himself, who complains 

 inter alia that Boisduval has anticipated him (in 1835) by pub- 

 lishing on the same subject, although knowing of Guerin's 

 proposed work ; (2) the fact that only the plates, never the text, 

 are quoted by Laporte (1832) or Burmeister (1834-5), two of the 

 principal hemipterists of that date ; and (3) Boisduval, in the 

 'Voyage of the Astrolabe . . . Faune Entomologique, lere partie 

 Lepidopteres ' (1832), writes in an "Avis" inserted between the 

 title-page and page 1 of the " Avertissement" : that, while this 

 first half-volume was being printed, several livraisons of plates 

 of the entomological part of the ' Coquille ' have been published. 



■'' The tenth item under Boisduval, in Hagen's ' Bibliotheca,' p. 64, 

 should be erased, as it is entirely erroneous. 



