On Generic Nomenclature. 253 



tion of them, as his division was not admitted by subsequent 

 writers, I therefore think it but just to Jurine to re- 

 establish his genus by the type he intended for it; although, 

 by some accident, he figured the Pcmphredon lugubris F. by 

 that name. This genus, consequently, consists of his second 

 family ; as I consider that the strictest rules of generic 

 nomenclature admit of my using his name for that division 

 which does not furnish a type for a previously established 

 genus." (p. 199.) 



As Jurine had unknowingly given a different name to 

 insects already named by Latreille, yet, as he divided them 

 into two families, and, consequently, the genus contained two 

 types (for, by his system of classification, his second family 

 was as fully of generic value as the first) ; and, as he made 

 a mistake evidently in the figure (for he intended to figure 

 the Cemonus unicolor) ; I thought it but justice to him 

 to retain his name for the second family. Perhaps, strictly, 

 his name ought to be considered as merely the synonyme of 

 the first family: if so, Mr. Westwood's Dineurus must stand. 

 But should not modesty have prescribed a little latitude ? 

 Yet I am not quite sure that I was not right in the first 

 instance ; and I therefore invite the opinion of competent 

 judges. In adopting Jurine's name of Cemonus for his second 

 family, I certainly did not commit so great an error (if it be 

 one at all, *»nd which I consciously did, for the sake of re- 

 taining Jurine's name) as that which Mr. Westwood ascribes 

 to Dr. Leach ; namely, by applying the synonyme to another 

 insect in the already named family ; for Latreille evidently 

 did not know Jurine's second family, but was fully acquainted 

 with the first. 



As to Pemphredon, Mr. Westwood says, in his philippic 

 against me, at p. 171. of the present volume of this work, that 

 his history of the genus was confined to ascertaining its 

 original type, and that my history corroborates his. This 

 I deny ; and I shall show that it does not, when I come to 

 the summary of his inaccuracies. But there still exists the 

 question, whether Latreille had not a right subsequently to fix 

 definitely his type, upon making all the characters conform; 

 especially as I shall show that the previous characters, conjunc- 

 tively, suited neither the presumed nor the adduced type; 

 and this has evidently been conceded by those who have since 

 written upon the subject ; namely, by St. Fargeau, Van der 

 Linden, Mr. Curtis, and myself; and has, besides, a possession 

 of nearly thirty years to substantiate it, even if it had been 

 wrong. But Mr. Westwood's attack upon me has induced 

 me to reexamine the subject; and I am prepared now to 

 say, upon the internal evidence afforded by a critical investi- 



