9062 Insects. 
The somewhat reckless suppression of Stephensian names remains, 
however, as yet unjustified. 
E. C. Rye. 
284, King’s Road, Chelsea, S.W. 
April 7, 1864. 
Postscript.—It seems to me that the only correct way of attacking 
such of the Kirbyan and Stephensian species as are desired to be 
repudiated would be to mention them, individually by name, and to give 
in detail the reasons for rejecting each of them. This could only be 
done by some one who is a thorough master of all procurable evidence, 
and who has a perfect knowledge of the iusects themselves as species, 
and of the very specimens referred to in the descriptions, however old 
or in bad condition they may be. Of course any defender of them 
would require similar qualifications ; aud, taking evey the Homalotas 
alone into consideration, Mr. Crotch will, I hope, pardon me for saying 
that neither is he, nor am I, competent to argue either way. I must 
say 1 consider the matter of priority set at rest, as far as it can be, by 
the statements of Mr. Waterhouse. 
Admitting, for the moment, Mr. Crotch’s sweeping and general 
statements, it appears by his own admission that throughout the 
Coleoptera he bas passed over no less than seventy-seven names which 
we claim for British authors (of which six seem to be “ inadvertently ” 
deposed, though inadvertence in such a matter is scarcely pardonable). 
Mr. Crotch selects the Brachelytra as containing the most of these; 
and, allowing (for the sake of argument only) his deductions, there 
remain twenty-three, which, as he says, have any claim to be restored, 
and whereof many appear to him to be very doubtful. I again ask, 
Has Mr. Crotch himself endeavoured to sift all attainable evidence, 
even about these twenty-three only? Has he examined the insects, 
the types themselves, or is he conscious that an examination by him 
would in many cases be useless? 
I am well aware that no one is better qualified than he for working 
out expeditiously and correctly any matters of reference, questions of 
date, or generally knotty points of entomological literature; still in 
this case such capabilities are not called into use, and I think myself 
justified in saying I believe he has not sifted the evidence afforded by 
the specimens in the Kirbyan and Stephensian Collections (especially 
the former), and that he has therefore only a theoretical opinion in the 
matter. 
ay 
The very instance he gives of Mr. Waterhouse citing nineteen 
