to the British Hemiptera Heteroptera. 281 



Passing to the remarks on the Fabrician genera, Mr. Dallas 

 is well enough able to take his own part in explaining why, 

 when revising the genus Cydnus, he retained the name for a 

 single species ; nor do we care to inquire why Fieber, Gerst- 

 acker, and Barensprung differ in their interpretation of the 

 genus ; for, as we see by the light of what has been done in 

 other orders, there was no rule to guide them, and we believe 

 that all are wrong in principle, as shown above. 



As to Tetyra^ Fab., it was Laporte, and not Fieber, who 

 eliminated certain species of that genus mider the name of 

 Eurygaster ; and it is therefore improper still to refer them to 

 Tetyra by the authors quoted. From Asopus^ Bm-m., Amyot 

 and Serville selected A. ccerulea (which can only be considered 

 at most a type of part of Burmeister's genus) as the type 

 of a new genus [Zicronci) ; and the European species of Asopus^ 

 except luridus^ having been referred by different authors to 

 other genera, luridus was the only one left for Fieber to take 

 as the representative of the genus ; but it would have been 

 better if, as Mr. Pascoe says, he had employed Herrich- 

 Schaffer's name Po^zsi^s, as he has indicated in the 'Schliissel.' 



2. " Giving new names to such genera as were formed by 

 the union of two or more genera of a preceding writer." 



The argument of this objection is met by anticipation in the 

 foregoing remarks ; for it cannot be said with any truth that 

 the name of a thing should be retained for another thing which 

 is differently constituted, but of which the former may be an 

 ingredient. A chemist when he combines two or more elements 

 does not give the name of any one of them to the resulting 

 compound ; neither can it be rightly done in the labours of the 

 naturalist. We heartily wish it could. 



Whether or not the names we have given to the combinations 

 of the genera mentioned will stand is a very small matter, if 

 the union of species proposed be received as good. Nor are 

 we anxious on this latter point, as we do not attach an exag- 

 gerated importance to genera as now understood, regarding 

 them rather as useful for classification than absolutely natural 

 divisions*. Microsynamma, Fieb. (MS.), was discarded for 

 Neocoris because it was not intended for more than one species, 

 and the characters drawn for it would not include Plagiognathus 

 Bohemanij which is now by us associated with N. Scotti. 



* Flor's trinomial nomenclature, which Mr. Pascoe thinks is " rather 

 difficult to explain," is easy to understand, as the first generic name is 

 used in a collective or "family" sense, and the second as subgeneric. 

 But the device is cumbrous, and especially inconvenient for quotation ; 

 the purpose intended would have been bette'r served by a reference of the 

 genera (or subgenera) to families (or subfamilies). 



Ann. d: Mag. N. Hist. Ser. 4. Vol. i. 21 



