Insects. 9063 
avowedly prior Stephensian names as synonyms to Erichsonian ones, 
is to my mind pretty conclusive evidence that in all others he adopted 
there were sufficient reasons for his doing so. 
I merely selected Homalota vicina at random; any other species 
would doubtless have done as well. 
It is true I was not (nor, I believe, was Mr. Crotch) aware that 
Erichson’s work was published in two parts, or that the first portion, 
containing Homalota, came out in the same year as the ‘ Manual’ of 
Stephens, which contains an avowedly sufficient description of the 
species in question; but, by Mr. Crotch’s showing, the ‘ Illustrations’ 
were published seven years before, and they contain a much more 
ample account than the ‘ Manual.’ The “ salient point of the diagnosis 
omitted” is absolutely nothing but a sexual difference, and surely a 
species ought not to be re-named because a subsequent observer sup- 
plements such a character to a description. In how many Erichsonian 
species do we see “mas latet” at the end? and yet the name stands, 
though others have afterwards found and described the male. It is a 
mistake to look in Stephens’ Collection for Kirby’s types; the Kirbyan 
species, of which this is one, were simply published by Stephens in 
the body of his work, the characters being of Kirby’s own writing. 
I have examined Kirby’s type, which is so ticketed and numbered that 
no error can arise ; it is positively the H. vicina of the ‘ Manual,’ and 
the umbonata of Erichson; and, being a female, I do not see how he 
could have described the male character from it, there being but that 
one. It must be remembered that insects now common, were, in the 
early days of working at Brachelytra, considered very rare. The ex- 
pression “found in Boleti” is doubtless of Stephens’ adding, being 
indeed in different type to the description; and this is borne out by 
the specimens representing vicina in Stephens’ own collection, which 
are common fungus species. It is manifestly, absurd to look in 
Stephens’ Collection for Kirby’s types, simply because Kirby’s de- 
scription was published in Stephens’ book: this remark will apply also 
to divers other Kirbyan names, in other genera, which are proposed to 
be sunk. 
As far as regards H. vicina, I have known it named as H. friangulum, 
malgré both Stephens and Erichson. 
I myself informed Mr. Crotch that I was about to attempt short 
_ descriptions of the British Steni, and indeed he has kindly given me a 
list of localities of rare species, and also some remarks upon synonymy ; 
but he knows I do not intend to enter into any statement of my views 
on the latter point, as my intention is to enable beginners to name 
