Entomological Society. 9543 



another generic name of prior date. I have thought, therefore, that a short notice 

 calling attention to the enormous evil involved in such changes, both as to the number 

 of names that would have to be cancelled, and to the uncertainty as to what should be 

 considered to be too near an approach to the older name, would be desirable. In such 

 closely sounding words as Cercus and Circus, Eclinus and Ecdmiis, Sypalus and 

 Sipalus, there could be no doubt ; whether, having regard to our peculiar pronuucia- 

 tion, such names as Lina by the side of Lcena, Centor by Sintor, or Dignomus by 

 Dinomus would be admissible, would not be a question out of England. Few, too, 

 would have any difficulty about Pteroclus and Plerocles, Drapetes and Drapelis, 

 Hephiallus and Ephialtes, Spondylis and Spondi/lus, but some may hesitate as to 

 Lctna because of Lemur, Harpalus because of Hapalus or Cololes because of Calotes P 

 Then would no one be found to assert that Europs was too close to Euups, or Blax to 

 Blaps, or AsU/cus to Astacus. Hyperion has been found too near Hyphmreon* 

 Should we not also reject TycAnis because of /"ric/tiMs, i^j-ixw* because of Pkriclus, 

 Typhaa because of Tiphia P M. James Thomson ignores Desmocerus because of 

 Desmoderus, Orthostoma because of Orthosoma, Aphies because of Aphis. But com- 

 pare Thysia to Thyrsia, Frea to Phaa, Nicias to Nysius, jElara to Hilara, and by the 

 same standard we should reject them too. Then there are many names that, owing 

 to a radically different spelling, may not have struck us as being similar in sound, 

 such, for instance, as Allcesia and Halyzia (as well as Alysia), Sitona and Cetonia, 

 Lichas and Lycus, Enema and Anama, Cyrlus and Syrtis, &c. One great authority 

 considers all names as practically identical which only vary in the termination. Thus 

 Ammobius is sunk because of Ammobia, while to replace it we have Ammophtorus, 

 notwithstanding that there is already an Ammophorus, and in the same family too. 

 Following up this rule, what is to become of Dromius after Dromia, Pachyta after 

 Packytos, Mycetcea after Myceles, Pogonus after Pogonias, and so on. What are the 

 advantages to be derived from such changes? Ornithologists have no difficulty in 

 using Pica and Picus, Otis and Olus, &c. It is bad enough to have to alter the 

 names that are absolutely identical, and they are more numerous, I think, than is 

 generally imagined. It will be seen that I have entirely confined myself to the Cole- 

 optera, as being better known, in the names I have quoted that will require to be can- 

 celled, if the principle I contend against should be adopted. A word or two as to 

 making slight alterations to render, I presume, names more classical. This, I think 

 ought not to be done except when some very gross error has been committed, as in the 

 celebrated Spavins case. Dr. Kraatz has just used the word 3Marachnica avowedly 

 because the more correct form would be too long. On the other hand, Mr. Crotch, in 

 his ' Catalogue,' changes Emus of Leach to Emys, but Leach, probably, very well 

 knew that this form of the word had been already appropriated to a genus of tortoises. 

 Mr. Crotch, therefore, must either coin a new word or go back to the old one. Is 

 there anything but confusion likely to follow such alterations ? " 



Prof. Westwood thought it unadvisable to change generic names on the oround 

 discussed by Mr. Pascoe, or indeed on any ground except the precise identity of the 

 two appellations. He had, thirty years ago, compiled a catalogue of all the generic 



* Prof. Westwood changed the first of these names to Campylocnemis, under 

 the idea that it had been previously used; Mr. Macleay's genus, however, was 

 Hyphareort. 



