( 328 ) 



XXVI. Observations upon the Nomenclature adopted in the 

 recently published " Catalogue of British Coleoptera," 

 having reference more especially to Remarks contained 

 in Dr. Schaum's Paper " On the Restoration of Ob- 

 " solete Names in Entomology.'''' By G. R,. Water- 

 house, Esq., V.P.Z.S., Sec. 



[Read 2nd June, 1862 J 



Dr. Schaum, in his paper above referred to, commences by stating 

 tliat I have furnished positive information on a great many species 

 established by Enghsh Entomologists, and especially by the late 

 Mr. Stephens, which no continental author had ever been able to 

 identify. He objects to the adoption of the names substituted by 

 me for those of certain other authors, and makes it appear that 

 the descriptions of the species to which they belong are utterly 

 valueless. 



I have given certain information, and as I take it, the points 

 now to be settled cannot be disposed of " en masse," but that 

 each separate case of the adoption of one name instead of another, 

 must be taken on its own merits. I protest against the intro- 

 duction, into this matter, of sweeping clauses respecting descrip- 

 tions said to be utterly false and valueless, and allowing it to 

 appear, by inference, that they apply to the cases in question. I 

 have endeavoured to deal fairly, and in accordance with the 

 custom among naturalists, in each separate instance, but in the 

 multitude and complexity of the cases I had to deal with, I 

 cannot for a moment suppose that I have always been correct in 

 my conclusions ; and I hope when any objections to my mode of 

 proceeding arise in any particular instance, that I shall confess I 

 was wrong, if I was so, and act accordingly. I protest particularly 

 against the earliest statement in Dr. Schaum's paper, that no con- 

 tinental author had ever been able to identify Stephens' species ; 

 and for this reason, that Dr. Schaum does not state whether 

 he has any good ground for believing that continental Entomolo- 

 gists have really taken the necessary, or, I may say, the usual 

 pains to identify them. How is it that the continental Coleop- 

 terists did not discover that Ischnopodn long'itars'is of Stephens 

 was the same as Calodera longitarsis of Erichson, subsequentlj' 

 published ? The mere identity of the specific name, when Erich- 



