( 323 ) 



XXV. On the Restoration of Obsolete Names in Entomology. 

 By Dr. H. Schaum. 



[Read 7th April, 1862.] 



On recently publishing a second edition of the *' Catalogiis 

 Coleopterorum Europse" (Berlin, 1862), the opportunity first 

 presented itself of obtaining from Mr. Waterhouse's Catalogue 

 of British Coleoptera (London, 1858' — 60) positive information 

 respecting a great many species established by English Ento- 

 mologists, and especially by the late Mr. Stephens, which no 

 continental author had ever been able to identify. The ad- 

 vantages which I derived in some genera from the study of this 

 Catalogue will be obvious to every one, and require no further 

 comment. As, however, I have not in the majority of cases 

 adopted the older names of Stephens and Marsham restored by 

 Mr. Waterhouse, notwithstanding the care which the latter has 

 bestowed on the exact determination of the British species, and 

 notwithstanding the apparent correctness of the synonymy given 

 by him, I feel it incumbent upon me to explain to the English 

 Entomologists my reasons for not having done so. 



It is universally acknowledged that a species must have been 

 described in order that priority can be claimed for its name; and 

 no one thinks of assigning priority to a mere catalogue name, 

 because we are unable thereby to recognize the species to which 

 it has been given. This reason, however, compels us to put the 

 query, when can it be said that a species has been described 1 



Even the most fanatical advocate of the law of priority will not 

 pretend that a species has been described, concerning which 

 utterly false notices, or erroneous or unimportant indications, are 

 given, which so completely fail in characterising the species that 

 no one is able to recognise it. Otherwise it would be possible to 

 ensure the adoption of names by the publication of diagnoses 

 absolutely au hasard, and which have no bearing whatever on the 

 insects. I consider it impossible for any reasonable man to 

 consent to this, and to assert, for instance, that the H'lster 

 australis, Boisd. (Faun, de I'Ocean.) is a described species of the 

 genus Saprinus, because it is said to be " nigro-cyaneus, nitidus, 

 subtus ater," or that Coccinella virescens, Hope (Zool. Misc.) is a 

 described species oi' the group of Chrysomelidce, because Hope has 



