TO INDIAN CAECINOLOGY. 411 



Genus Diogenes, Dana. 



Great confusion exists as to the nomenclature of the commonest and longest known 



members of this genus. I have therefore drawn up in tabular form below, a synopsis of 



the species described by last-century writers, arranged according to order of publication, 



and showing the probable interpretation of each, or the name which the species now bears. 



Linnaeus, 1 767 Cancer Diogenes Probably several species included under 



Syst. Nat. torn. i. pars 2. this name. 



Fabricius, 1 775 Pagurus Diogenes Description copied from Linnaeus. 



Syst. Ent. 



Fabricius, 1787 Pagurus Diogenes Species unrecognizable, perhaps a 



.Mantissa Insect, torn. i. Paqurus*. 



Pagurus miles D. miles ( Herbst) . 



Fabricius had evidently seen the 

 then unpublished figure of Herbst, 

 for he refers the species to Cancer 

 miles, Herbst. 



Herbst, 1791 1 Cancer Diogenes D. Diogenes (Herbst). 



Naturges. Krabben u. Krebse, 

 Bd, ii. Heft 1. 



Cancer miles D. miles ( H erbst) . 



Fabricius, 1 793 Pagurus Diogenes Species unrecognizable. 



Ent. Syst. torn. ii. 



Pagurus miles D. miles ( Herbst) . 



(Both the above are copied from the 

 ( Mantissa Insectorum.') 



Fabricius, 1798 Pagurus Dioyenes Species unrecognizable. 



Suppl. Ent. Syst. 



Pagurus miles Probably D. Diogenes (Herbst). 



Pagurus custos Probably D. custos (Fabr.) , Milne-Edw. 



Pagurus diaphanus D. miles (Herbst) . 



The first writer to definitely characterize any of the species is Herbst, and on Taf. xxii. 

 of his work he gives clear and unmistakable figures of two of the commoner forms, which 

 I shall redescribe in the following pages as Diogenes Diogenes % (Herbst) and D. miles 

 (Herbst). The short diagnoses of Fabricius, published four years earlier in the 'Mantissa 

 Insectorum,' were probably intended to characterize the same species, and in the case of 

 the second, viz. Pagurus miles, Fabricius makes reference to the then unpublished figure 

 of Herbst. In the ' Supplementum Eatomologiae Systematicte,' published seven years after 

 Herbst's description of the two above-named species, confusion is apparent — Herbst's Cancer 



* Dc Haan referred this species to P. asjiersus, Berthold. 



t Herbst's work appeared in parts published between 1 782 and 1804 ; the date given is that of the part in which 

 the two species of Diogenes arc described. 



t Identical generic and specific names are perhaps objectionable, but the other alternative, of chan<nn<>- a lou»- 

 established specific name because it has at some later period been adopted for the genus, appears to me still more obiec- 

 tionable. The latter plan was adopted by Dana in the Paguridas, and his species Clibanarius vulgaris and Aniculus 

 lypicus should, in my opinion, stand as Clibanarius c'ibanariua (Herbst) and Aniculus aniculus (Fabr.). 



