211-2 The Zoologist— April, 1870. 



two postulates wbicli the questiou assumes, (1) that the Brenthiil Diurus dates only from 

 1803, and (2) that Biurus is not to be retained. 



AVhen a name is simply mis-spelt, I hold that the spelling may be corrected, but the 

 name retains its prioritj'. Stephens wrote Oinophila, which has been corrected into 

 QLnoi^hila; but the genus OEnophila is properly referred to Stephens, aud dates from 

 the time of the publication of Oinophila. 



But when a name is mal-formed, the malformation must either be retained or 

 discarded i7i toto ; in the latter case, a new name is substituted, and the new name dates 

 only from the time of substitution. 



Hybrid names fall within the latter class. They are malfomiations, not mis-spellings ; 

 if not retained in their deformity, they are to be eradicated and replaced, but not 

 reformed. If Stephens had written africephalus, would any one cite the same insect as 

 the 7;!c/a7iocephalus of Stejihens? 



The fact that by the alteration of a single letter the hybrid Biurus can be transferred 

 into the pure-breed Dimnis is at first sight misleading. It looks like a very simple case 

 of correcting a mis-spelt name. But in truth it is much more than this. To convert 

 Biurus into Diurus, an operation is performed precisely analogous and equivalent to the 

 conversion of atricephalus into melanocephalus. Melanocephalus is not an emendation 

 of the old name ; it is a new name. So Diurus is not an emendation of Biurus ; it is a 

 new name. 



I hold it to be incorrect to cite it as Diurus of Motschulsky. It is the Diurus of the 

 ' Catalogus Coleoptcrorum,' dating only from 1800. So Ditoma, substituted by Illiger for 

 the Bitoma of Herbst, is inconeotly cited as Ditoma of Herbst. It is the Ditoma of 

 Illiger, and takes priority from 1806, and not from 179:3. 



If (as for the present argument is assumed) hybrid names are not to be retained, 

 I repeat that the proper treatment of such names is to reject them altogether. Aud such 

 is the practice, at least with specific names. For where the oldest specific name is a 

 hybrid, it is not attempted to make the name either wholly Greek or wholly Latin, but 

 the mongrel is cast out, and the next oldest name is taken in its stead. 



If Diurus had not been already in use, it would of course have been open to 

 Gemminger and Harold, when discarding Biurus, to adopt Diurus as a new name 

 for the Telcphorid genus. But in selecting a new name, they were bound to select 

 one that was not pre-occupied. When re-naming the genus in 1869, they were 

 debarred from taking a name applied to another genus in 1862. 



In truth I suspect that when they changed Biurus into Diurus they had forgotten the 

 existence of Dejean's genus. Lacordaire (Gen. des Coleop. iv. 3C8) remarks of Biurus 

 " nom hybride, et qui dans sa forme regulicre (Diurus) a deja ete employe pour des 

 Curculionides ; " whence I infer that in 1857 the Professor held the pre-occupation of 

 Diurus was a bar to the alteration introduced by Gemminger and Harold in 1809. 



The answer to Jlr. Pascoe's question, in my opinion, clearly is, that the name Diurus 

 properly belongs to the genus of Breuthidse ; that the alteration of Biurus in 1869 does 

 not relate back to 1852 so as to oust the Diui'us of 1862; and if Biurus is not retained, 

 some unoccupied name must be found for the genus of Telephorida;. 



In conclusion, I beg to present the advocates of priority-at-any-price with the following 

 fact. The type-species of Diurua was originally published (by a misprint) under the 

 specific name turcillatus (Schonh. Cure. i. 359). It is true the error was corrected seven 

 years later (Schonh. Cure. v. 510) ; but of course that goes for notliing, and an intelHgent 

 posterity is expected to acquiesce in the pei-petuation of Diurus turcillatus.' to welcome 

 this typographo-diabolical Turklet, and immortalize this two-tailed bashaw ! — J. W. D. 



