9058 Insects. 
and had rejected Sahlbergian and other names, as well as Stephensian 
ones. An analysis of the group shows that Mr. Waterhouse cites 
fourteen as described by Marsham; of these I recognize six: 
fifty-six are referred to Stephens; of these I have retained five. 
Here there would appear to be some ground for the accusation 
brought against me; but let us examine what is the evidence brought 
forward, on the strength of which we are to overthrow fifty-six names 
that have been in constant use for twenty years. In twenty-two of 
these cases Mr. Waterhouse acknowledges that the examples in the 
collection do not agree with the description; following, therefore, the 
example of Mr. Wollaston in the Atomariz, and that of entomologists 
generally, these names would be rejected. In six cases, further 
investigation has shown that older names take the precedence of even 
the Stephensian ones. There remain, therefore, only twenty-eight 
names, having any claim to be restored, and many of these certainly 
appear to me very doubtful. But the same analysis forces upon us 
the difficult fact, that in no less than nineteen cases, does Mr. Water- 
house cite the avowedly prior Stephensian names as synonyms to the 
Erichsonian ones! What, then, is to be our guide? 
Mr. Rye, to illustrate his position, has chosen an instance, the 
Homalota vicina of Stephens, which he states to be at once recog- 
nisable from the description in the ‘ Illustrations’ and the ‘ Manual,’ 
and quotes the latter verbatim. Admitting that this quotation suffi- 
ciently characterizes the insect, he has, I believe, since become aware 
that the ‘ Manual’ was published in 1839, or the same year as the first 
part of Erichson’s ‘Genera et Species, in which case I suppose few, 
even in this country, would accord priority to the ‘Manual.’ The 
‘Illustrations’ were indeed published in 1832, but not only is the 
salient point of the diagnosis omitted, but the insect is said jo be 
found in “ Boleti, Norfolk and Suffolk,” and neither locality being 
quoted in the ‘ Manual, and the habitat being most unlikely, if not 
impossible. 
Upon such slender grounds as these, which are not even detailed 
for them, are we to expect the continental workers to overthrow the 
name “umbonata,” thoroughly characterized and universally adopted 
twenty years ago? 
Of the genus Stenus, indeed, a careful investigation has been pub- . 
lished in the ‘ Transactions,’ by Messrs. Waterhouse and Janson, and 
report says that Mr. Rye is about to describe that group; we shall 
then probably have a detailed statement of his views upon their 
synonymy. G, R. Crotcu, 
