336 Mr. G. R. Waterhouse upon the Nomenclature 



night, and printer's boy for " more copy" in the morning ! His 

 extensive work was produced under such circumstances. There 

 is good and bad matter in it, and the question arises, how far the 

 latter vitiates the former ? Seeking for a solution of this question, 

 it appeared to me to be answered thus : we will take all the good 

 we can get out of this book, but we cannot undertake to deal with 

 the detail. As least this I take to be the true interpretation from 

 what has been done. 



In 1829 Latreille furnished us with a general sketch of the 

 genera of Staphyli7ndce (with one or two exceptions) known at 

 that time, amounting to eighteen in number. In the same year 

 appeared Stephens's " Systematic Catalogue," which furnishes an 

 outline of the labours of Kirby (with some additions, chiefly by 

 Leach) in the same group. In the following year Mannerheim's 

 *' Precis d'lin nouvel Arrangement de la Famille des Brachelytres" is 

 published, and here are adopted several of the genera proposed 

 by Kirby and Leach, and with the same names, such as Alitalia, 

 Talagria, Dinarda, BolitoUus and Acidota ; and others seem to 

 have been adopted, but with other names substituted, such as 

 Mycetoporus (for Ischnosoma), Hypocyptus (for Cypha), Eulyssus 

 (for Gyrohypnus), Cryptobium (for Ochihephilum), and Trogophloeus 

 (for CarpaVmus). Early in the year 1832 all the new genera 

 indicated in Stephens' Catalogue were characterized in the 

 " Illustrations." Ultimately, after careful scrutiny by Erichson 

 and Kraatz, the greater portion of these genera (twenty-three in 

 number) were adopted, and with the names originally proposed. 

 I especially notice this point, because I think it clearly shows 

 every disposition on the part of the two great masters in Staphy- 

 Hnology to do justice to the English authors; and with regard to 

 the Ischnopoda question, raised by Dr. Schaum, I have a strong 

 impression that Dr. Kraatz was not exactly aware how the case 

 stood, or the name given by Stephens would have been adopted. 

 Respecting the Stephensian names adopted by me for certain 

 species of Staphylinidce , in preference to other names subsequently 

 applied to the same insects, 1 will venture to say that the descrip- 

 tions of those species fulfil the conditions insisted ujion by 

 Dr. Schaum. In proof of this I may say that they were nearly 

 all determined by me from the descriptions. I say " nearly all," 

 though I am not aware of any exception, for I cannot take 

 up every individual case at this moment. They are nearly 

 all Kirbian species, and although the specimens (at least nine- 

 tentlis of them) from which the descriptions were taken are 

 now in the Collection of the Entomological Society, they were 



