4 Mr. J. O. Westwood on the Chalcidklce. 



legists, the catalogue of authors who have attempted their investigation is 

 complete ; while at the same time there is hardly any group which can vie 

 with them, either in the singularity of their economy, the peculiarity of 

 their characters, or the brilliancy of their colouring. 



Previously, however, to entering upon the history of the nomenclature 

 of the family, I think it necessary to make a few preliminary remarks upon 

 certain principles of Entomological Nomenclature ; and, with Spinola, in 

 the first place to declare, that " quant a la Nomenclature, la priorite est ma 

 loi." 



It is well known that Linneeus, Fabricius, and their contemporaries often 

 comprised in their extensive genera insects so different in structure, that 

 certain of them are ascertained, their characters being now more minutely 

 investigated, to belong even to other groups. 



On the other hand it happened far more frequently that the greater part 

 of the insects composing these genera were, from the great, and indeed 

 surprising degree of discrimination possessed by the before-named authors, 

 so nearly allied to each other in affinity, that the modern Entomologist has 

 only to reject the few disagreeing species, to form the oldest generic name* 

 employed in the group into that of a family, by transforming the termina- 

 tion of the last syllable of the genitive case of the generic name into the 

 patronymic ides ; and to reduce the species into minor divisions and sub- 

 divisions, which we now term genera or sub-genera ; the ancient generic 



* Mr. Stephens, in his Illustrations (Haustellata, I. p. 74, note,) observes, 

 " that the name of the family should unquestionably be derived from that of 

 the typical group ;" and adds, that from his limited knowledge of exotic forms 

 he should not attempt to decide whether the name which he had employed, or 

 that which had been employed by a contemporary author for the same family, 

 ought to be retained. No further proof of the practical inconvenience of this plan, 

 although it may perhaps be theoretically correct, can be required. Indeed, until 

 the contents of any particular family are clearly ascertained, the supposed typical 

 group, (or, in other words, that group which, from its situation in the family, 

 possesses the characters of the adjacent families in a slighter state of develope- 

 ment than any of the other groups in the same family,) will be continually 

 subject to variation as new forms are discovered, and hence, if Mr. Stephens's 

 rule should be adopted, the family name will necessarily be subject to similar 

 variation. This inconvenience, however, may be at once obviated by adopting' 

 the rule which T have stated above. 



