Obsolete Names in Entomology. 327 



bore a label in 1860 is the very one which Stephens in 1832, or 

 earlier, had on his table when he composed his book? In many 

 cases it can be proved that it is not. Of the species of Atomaria 

 the only one which is clearly defined is the very conspicuous A. 

 gidta, the name of which has therefore been adopted in all recent 

 works. Now it happens that the only specimen of the Ste- 

 phensian collection, and yet nevertheless labelled, is not A. gutta, 

 but A. apicalis. 



There are still some English Entomologists who repose great 

 confidence in the so-called Marshamian types. I am far from 

 denying that these specimens came from Marsham's collection, 

 but are we to suppose that, as there appears always to be one 

 example only, Marsham had always but one specimen of each 

 species; or are we to suppose that Stephens kept but one? And 

 what guarantee have we in the case of obscure species, when 

 several may have been confounded, that Stephens kept the very 

 specimen from which Marsham drew up his specific diagnosis? 



The list of synonyms given in our books is nothing more than 

 the history of our knowledge of each species. When a species is 

 fully known (e. g. Carabus auratus) the history of our knowledge 

 loses most of its interest, and I think that we need not then con- 

 tinue to store up all the bibliographical references which we may 

 collect, and religiously to preserve the memory of such names, 

 which are no longer of any interest to the student. Our quotations 

 may then be very well restricted to a few of those works by which 

 our knowledge has been advanced. 



