326 Dr. H. Schaiim on the Restoration of 



tlie name, and probably would have done so if it could have been 

 said that the genus Ischnopoda in reality corresponds with Chito- 

 pora; but in Stephens's work it is composed of seven species, the 

 first and last of which (specifically identical) alone belong to 

 Chilopora ; the second and third are Tachyusce, the sixth is a 

 Homalota, and the fourth and fifth appear to be no longer extant, 

 as no mention whatever is made of them in Mr. Waterhouse's 

 Catalogue (but they were certainly not Chiloporce). Can it, under 

 tliese circiimstancies, be said, that the genus Ischnopoda, which is 

 not characterized at all, and which is an assemblage of species 

 belonging to at least three different genera, is identical with 

 Chilopora, merely because the first species happens to belong to it? 



And are there any better grounds for changing the name of 

 Atomarla nana, Eric, into that of A. nigrwentris, Steph., because 

 two labelled specimens of nigrwentris belong to nana, when it can 

 be shown that Stephens has not pointed out any character of nana, 

 but confounded in his collection, under the name of nigriventris, 

 specimens of A. nana, A. linearis and A. elongatula, and moreover 

 mixed other specimens of nana with umbrina under the name of 

 nigrirostris , and with linearis under the name of linearis ? 



I will not conclude without moreover proving that no great 

 faith can be placed, even in the so-called " typical specimens" of 

 the Stephensian or any other collection, and in the labelled ones 

 no more than in those which are not labelled ; although I will not 

 deny that in many cases much assistance may be derived from the 

 examination of them in deciphering more or less obscure de- 

 scriptions. 



Is it to be supposed that Mr. Stephens, who lived twenty years 

 after the publication of his work, had not made many changes in 

 his collection, or had not re-arranged a great part of it in the 

 course of those twenty years ? And I can state positively that he 

 must have done so, if his collection is now all in order. For in 

 1847 (when I examined his Carahidcs) the diflScult genera Har- 

 palus, Amara, &c., and especially Bembidium, were in great con- 

 fusion ; many species had no labels at all, and many specimens were 

 supposed by Mr. Stephens to be his types merely from some hint 

 in his book. And I can also add to my own the testimony of 

 M. Mulsant, who visited Mr. Stephens with me, and who tried to 

 determine the Palpicornia (which the former had then just worked 

 up), but mho abandoned it on account of the disorder n-hich he found 

 that family to be in. 



And must it not be considered rather as a mere chance than as 

 a proof of the authenticity of the specimen, if tlie example which 



