332 Mr. G. R. Waterhouse upon the Nomenclature 



be the type of Mannerheim's genus, proceeds to criticise the main 

 character laid down by Mannerheim, and ultimately arrives at the 

 conclusion that, by inference, it suggests that the posterior tarsus is 

 short (the real character given being that the claw-joint is long), and, 

 such being the case, belongs not to the H. 'plana only, but to the 

 greater part of the species which Mannerheim included in his new 

 genus Bolitochara. On the other hand, as Mannerheim among his 

 characters for the genus Bolitochara, says, " tarsorum articulus 

 primus subsequente longior" he has by this given a character which 

 excludes nearly all the species he places in the genus. Erichson, 

 however, adopts Mannerheim's name Homalota, for the great mass 

 of the insects which Mannerheim regarded as members of his 

 genus Bolitochara, and includes likewise among them theH. plana. 

 Bolitochara, Mannerheim, is retained only for one or two species 

 in which the posterior tarsi have the basal joint elongate. I do 

 not object to this, but it furnishes a striking case of difficulties 

 surmounted (much greater than those alluded to by Schaum in the 

 case of Stephens' genus), and yet the original author's names being 

 retained. 



Chilopora of Kraatz, it has been just stated, forms part of 

 Erichson's genus Calodera. The genus Calodera however is 

 referred to Mannerheim, not because it was properly characterized, 

 but on account of the species it contained. Erichson says he 

 regards it as only a slight error on Mannerheim's part when 

 he gave the joints of the tarsi as equal in length, though, by the 

 way, I may remark, that this same character helps to separate the 

 enormous genus Homalota from the great mass of the Aleocharidts, 

 and does not belong to Calodera. Erichson adds other species to 

 Mannerheim's genus, noticing at the same time that they differ 

 slightly from the type, and upon these additional species Dr. 

 Kraatz subsequently establishes the two genera Chilopora, and 

 Ilyobates. Here then we have the case of a genus {Calodera, 

 Erich.) containing three distinct forms ; and supposing the original 

 name of the genus had been Erichson's, I should like to ask Dr. 

 Schaum whether that name would have been sunk because it con- 

 tained three genera, and therefore could not be regarded as equal 

 to Calodera, Kraatz, which is supposed to contain but one type of 

 form ? Were I to depart from the particular case brought forward 

 as an example, and from those genera immediately connected with 

 it, I need scarcely say that I could furnish innumerable instances 

 where, in breaking up an old genus, the old name is retained for 

 one of the divisions, — this is in fact the rule. But I need say no 



