Ml". G. R. Waterhouse wpon Nomenclature. 329 



son first published it, might have suggested the inquiry, and if 

 Stephens' description had been referred to, I am convinced that 

 no doubt on the matter could have existed. But if Erichson 

 omitted to notice the original source of the name in his " Kdfer 

 der Mark ■ Brandenburg" he makes good the omission in his 

 "Gen. et Sp. Staph." (p. 66), where he says "a eel. Dora. Spence ex 

 Anglia missa nomine Aleocharce longitarsis, Kirby." The specific 

 name is also referred to Kirby by Stephens. I have met with 

 other cases as strong as this, and it has forced" upon me the 

 conviction that continental Entomologists have certainly taken 

 very little pains in the matter. Again, what is more common in 

 cases of difficulty in identifying described species, than the 

 custom of consulting the specimens from which the descriptions 

 were taken ? The Berlin " Entomologische Zeitschrift" furnishes 

 us with numerous identifications through such means ; why are 

 we not to be allowed to adopt the same course ? Dr. Schaum 

 says, " no great faith can be placed even in the so-called typical 

 specimens of the Stephensian or any other collection;" and no 

 doubt he can bring forward numerous cases in which they are 

 more than doubtful, but to make good the point he had in view, 

 he should have shown that I had arrived at my conclusions from 

 such sources. 



Dr. Schaum furnishes a certain genus (Ischnopoda, Steph.) in 

 illustration of his views : I intend to confine myself as much as 

 possible to this particular case in the following remarks. In this 

 same genus, then, there is a certain species described under the 

 name " foveata." I am particularly anxious to draw attention to 

 the description of this insect. The group to which it belongs I 

 have long studied with great attention, and I will here reiterate a 

 remark which I formerly made, before the question now before 

 us had been raised ; it is in substance,* that without the help of 

 a certain number of well-named specimens of Aleocharidce which 

 had been placed in my hands, I did not think I could have deter- 

 mined other (unnamed) species from the descriptions either of 

 Erichson or Kraatz. Not that the descriptions are not excellent, 

 but that the distinctions of the species are so excessively difficult 

 of realization. Having said this, it will appear a very strong 

 statement when 1 say that the description in Stephens' " Illustra- 

 tions" (vol. V. p. 11], sp. 6), taken by itself, applies perfectly, in all 

 respects, to one particular species of the Aleocharidce, and will 



* See my " List of the British Species of Aleocharidce, " published in the 

 " Zoologist" for June, 1857. 



VOL. I. THIRD SERIES, PART IV. NOV. 1862. Z 



