in the Catalogue of British Coleoptera. 337 



not named when I commenced my work. These specimens were 

 all numbered by Kirby, but the names had to be sought for in 

 his MS. Catalogue. When, however, I referred to this source 

 for information, I found that the numbers did not run on, but 

 that each number was repeated many times. In every minute 

 section the numbering recommenced ; and thus, I think in the 

 Aleocharce alone, there must have been as many as twenty 

 insects bearing No. " 1 ;" and what was still more bewildering, 

 there was no distinction made between the nines and the sixes. 

 I could only see when I took a certain insect up that its number 

 was either "9" or "6," but could not tell which. I had to 

 compare it with the descriptions of all the species distinguished 

 by both numbers. Thus the descriptions were pretty severely 

 tested. In a very few cases I did not succeed to my satisfaction, 

 and consequently passed them over. These then are not the 

 species of which Dr. Schaum says, " Mr. Waterhouse did not 

 ascertain these older names by the study of the books, but merely 

 by the investigation of real or supposed typical specimens;" but 

 they are species which, according to his own rule, he would admit 

 because they are recognisable through the descriptions. It is 

 more especially the Stephensian and Marshamian species, and so 

 called types, that Dr. Schaum alludes to, but in ivactice he puts 

 all into the same category. 



I perfectly admit all that Dr. Schaum says of the Marshamian 

 types — they may have been changed, &c., &c., &c. 



I do not feel myself called upon to say those specimens marked 

 as the Marshamian types in Stephens's collection are really what 

 they profess to be, but I feel myself bound to see in each in- 

 dividual case whether the so-called type was in all probahility 

 (through its agreement with the description) what it professed to 

 be ; finding it rvas probable, through this source, it was rendered 

 still more so by its being ticketed with a peculiar ticket bearing 

 the number of the species as it stands in Marsham's book; and 

 further through the circumstance that the number in question is in 

 old writing — and certainly not Stephens'. 



Then these remarks, and others of a similar nature, contained 

 in the paper under consideration, do not apply (except by in- 

 ference) to the nomenclature adopted in my Catalogue. 



*' The restoration of obsolete names" for others in common use 

 is certainly, under such circumstances as those depicted by Dr. 

 Schaum, calculated rather to embarrass than to forward science; 

 and I full)i agree with what my excellent and talented friend says 

 on this subject, and I hope and believe, when he really gives his 



