6 Mr. J. O. Westwood on the Chalcididce. 



Confusion has hitherto constantly attended, and cannot but attend, the 

 employment of such synonymous names, which the introduction of new- 

 generic names would certainly have prevented, " Nominum genericorum 

 enim mutatio semper ansam confusionis prsebet." * 



* Fab., Phil. Ent. p. 105. 



The genus Eulophus will afford an example of the application of the above 

 rvile in a somewhat different manner. 



That g-enus was proposed by Geoffroy for a species, the male of which pos- 

 sessed branched antennae. Latreille extended the genus, comprising in it all 

 the species in the family whose antennas were apparently six or seven jointed. 

 Dalman adopted Latreille's views, but proposed that the generic name should be 

 changed to Entedon, placing however in his arrangement of the species (which 

 were formed into variovis sections and subsections) the species with the branched 

 antennce in the males in the first section at the head of his genus, thus con- 

 sidering them to possess the characters of the group in a greater state of 

 developement than the other species, all of which have simple antennae. But 

 to the student of this portion of our Entomological productions it is evident 

 that the group as extended by Latreille and Dalman is of higher than generic 

 rank, forming in fact a subfamily, which may be named, after Mr. Vigors's 

 plan, Eulophina, and that the generic name of Eulophus ought to be re- 

 stricted to the species with branched antennae in the males for which it was 

 first proposed ; and since Dalman has placed these species at the head of his 

 genus, we may be permitted to say that his name Entedon is only synonymous 

 with the true genus Eulophus, even without reference to the claims of the 

 latter name on account of its priority, and consequently that the name Ente- 

 don ought not to be employed generically to designate any one of the other 

 divisions or subdivisions comprised in Dalman's group, which are of equal 

 rank with the true Eulophi ; and for which (as it will be necessary to give them 

 names) it would be far preferable that new generic terms should be employed. 

 In the Coleoptera how many genera do we see proposed and adopted, whose 

 characters are far less decided than those which characterize Dalman's sections 

 and subsections ! and shall the objects comprised therein, merely because they 

 are minute, be denied the advantages (as I may almost call them) which their 

 relatives of larger size enjoy ? 



But supposing that the name of Eulophus were to be generically employed 

 for the true Eulophi, and the name of Entedon were not to be considered as a 

 synonym, but were to be employed generically for the insects contained in any 

 one of the said subdivisions of Entedon, I would ask how the Entomologist 

 could say that he is describing the genus Entedon of Dalman, when that genus 



