On Generic Nomenclature. c 255 



describe the mandibles or the head in the generic character ; 

 but he says, " L'abdomen tient au corselet par un petit filet 

 cylindrique, et forme brusquement. L'espece la mieux deter- 

 minee de ce genre est le Crabro lugubris de Fabricius." Thus 

 further confirming my view, that the Crabro lugubris F. ever 

 was, and is, and must remain, the type of the genus Pem- 

 phredon. 



In his next work (his Genera, at torn. iv. p. 83., 1809), he 

 perfectly describes the mandibles and the wings of the C. 

 lugubris, and refers, amongst the synonymes, to all the figures 

 of it, and to his own Histoire, torn. xiii. p. 325. ; and this same 

 view he takes in all his subsequent works, which, to save time, 

 as sufficient is already proved, and he never subsequently 

 changed his opinions, I need not cite. It is therefore evident 

 that Latreille had misled Mr. Westwood, by inadvertently 

 placing " Genre PempJiredon Latr., Precis des Carac. Genet; 

 des Insectcs, p. 128.," as a synonyme to his first section of Stig- 

 mus, under his citation of the Pemphredon minutus of Fabri- 

 cius; and that Latreille made a blunder here, is shown by his 

 also referring to r 'the Psen pallipes of Panzer, which is a peti- 

 olated insect. I may therefore assume that I have thus fully 

 proved that the Crabro lugubris of Fabricius was always the 

 type of the genus Pemphredon of Latreille. 



This brings me, thirdly, to the next topic for consideration ; 

 namely, to the proof of Mr. Westwood's inaccuracies. He 

 boldly challenges me to do so ; for he says I have " omitted 

 to point out a single inaccuracy;" and, in a note, he says, 

 he " has sought for these inaccuracies in vain." I will there- 

 fore proceed to show where and how they exist, as I owe it to 

 my own veracity ; and his words would insinuate that I had 

 made a general charge without being able to substantiate it. 

 But I will proceed rapidly, not only because I fear the reader's 

 patience is exhausted, but also because the task itself is dis- 

 agreeable, for I yield solely to the imperative necessity. 



The first inaccuracy, and which he admits, is the " troubled 

 synonyme of the Psen pallipes." The second inaccuracy is, in 

 citing Latreille's Genera before his Hisfoire, which preceded it, 

 in order of time, by several years ; and this is so far important, 

 that, in two distinct places, and in two different volumes, of 

 this Histoire, Latreille expressly states the type of Pemphredon 

 to be the Crabro lugubris of Fabricius. The third inaccuracy 

 is, where he states that Latreille says, in his Histoire, torn, iii., 

 that the mandibles of Pemphredon are unidentate; whereas 

 Latreille distinctly says, " Mandibules unidentees au cote 

 interne : " and this is an important difference, as it makes the 

 mandibles bidentate, instead of unidentate. The fourth in- 

 accuracy is one of omission, in not noticing what Latreille 



