254- On Generic Nomenclature. 



gation of the characters in every one of Latreille's descrip- 

 tions, that Mr. Westwood has not found the original type 

 (which never could have been an arduous task with his 

 views ; as, by his own admission, Latreille's own act had 

 pointed it out to him in his Genera) ; as it most certainly is 

 not the Crabro minutus of Fabricius, notwithstanding La- 

 treille's presumed assertion, by placing the genus Pempbre- 

 don of his Precis as a synonyme to the first section of 

 Stigmus in his Genera. In the first place, because I doubt 

 whether the Crabro minutus of Fabricius be not the Psen 

 atratus, proved by Fabricius's own reference to Panzer's figure 

 of Sphex pallipes Faun. Germ., 52.22.: see Piez., 316.9. 

 But, if this objection be overruled, and it be allowed to be 

 what has since passed as the Pemphredon minutus (namely, 

 as the Diodontus minutus of Curtis), I contend that this in- 

 sect never furnished Latreille with characters for any of his 

 descriptions of the genus Pemphredon. I will take these 

 descriptions consecutively in order of time ; and, to save 

 room, I will cite only what bears upon the point; and the 

 reader may be assured that I will suppress nothing that will 

 at all support Mr. Westwood's position. 



In the first work (viz. the Precis, published in 1796), La- 

 treille says, the mandibles are " grandes, arquees, bidentees." 

 This character, I admit, does not exactly conform to the 

 Crabro lugubris F., which has quinquedentate mandibles; but 

 it as certainly will not agree, except in being bidentate, with the 

 mandibles of the Crabro minutus F., which are small and 

 slender. Besides I have occasionally met with individuals of 

 the Pemphredon lugubris in which the mandibles were worn, 

 as is frequently the case in wood-boring insects; yet, I admit, 

 neversomuch as would renderthem merely bidentate, although 

 such an individual may have fallen into the hands of Latreille. 

 But the other characters will not in any way agree with the 

 Crabro minutus; for Latreille says, in continuation, " Tete 

 grosse, paroissant cubique vue en dessus. Abdomen ellipsoi'de, 

 petiole." This suits only the Pemphredon lugubris, and 

 cannot, by any interpretation, be made to fit the Crabro mi- 

 nutus; for in the latter the head is distinctly transverse; and 

 the abdomen, what is technically called subsessile. 



In his next work, the Histoirc, torn. iii. an. x. (1802), the 

 characters are almost a repetition: " Mandibules unidentees au 

 cote interne. Tete tres-grosse, paroissant carree vue en dessus. 

 Abdomen ovalaire, brusquement et distinctement pedoncule." 

 To which I apply the same observation as above ; and, in 

 confirmation of my opinion, he also there adduces, for the first 

 time, the Crabro lugubris F. as the type. 



In torn. xiii. of the same Histoire, 1805, p. 325., he does not 



