656 Mr. R. M'Lachlan on the 



LI. On the Types of Phryganidse described hy Fabricit/s 

 from the Banksian Collection. By R. M'Lachlan, 

 Esq., F.L.S. 



[Read 7th December, 1863.] 



In the present paper I purpose making a few remarks on the 

 species of PhryganidcE described by Fabricius as contained in the 

 collection of Sir Joseph Banks, and of which the types still exist. 



This collection has been lately presented to the British Museum 

 by its former possessors^ the Linnean Society, and all who take 

 an interest in the preservation of typical specimens will rejoice 

 greatly that those contained in this collection have been saved 

 from the ruin that awaited them, had they remained much longer 

 in the unsuitable quarters in which the Banksian Cabinets were 

 unavoidably placed at Burlington House. 



I have lately examined the few Trichopterous types, only three 

 in number. These are in very bad condition, but by dint of 

 cleaning off the fungoid matter that enveloped them, I have been 

 able to satisfy myself perfectly as to the modern genera in which 

 these insects should be placed, and that two (and probably all 

 three) have received new specific names. This is another example 

 of the necessity that exists for examining typical collections, when- 

 ever that may be possible, before venturing to propose new names. 

 It is, no doubt, true, that a vast number of the Fabrician descrip- 

 tions, and many also of the Linnsean, are quite enigmatical when 

 no types exist ; the same remark applies to the descriptions of most 

 of the old authors, and would be true of many of the modern ones 

 also, were not the types of these latter, in most cases, represented in 

 some of the large public or private collections ; and for this reason, 

 we are told, that no name should stand unless the species be per- 

 fectly recognizable from the description. But who is to be the 

 judge in this matter ? A. may say that B.'s descriptions are quite 

 unintelligible to him, and B. will retort that he can make nothing 

 of those of A., whereas C. may be able to correctly apply those 

 of both. It seems to me possible, that our inability to cor- 

 rectly understand the styles of different writers is often the 

 reason why a description is set down as worthless, when, at the 

 same time, it may be quite correct. I have seen it remarked, that 

 it would be a good thing if all the descriptive works on natural 



