8G0 ZOOLOGY— INSECTS. 



arrangement. It is clear that it' we follow the diagnoses of these genera 

 as given by him, all of our Calopteni will have to be removed to other 

 genera. C. f&mur-rubrum is placed in Pezotettix under the subgenus 

 Melanoplus, and, as a matter of course, must carry with it C t spretus, and 

 other closely allied and congeneric species. Stal is undoubtedly correct in 

 subdividing Serville's genus, as that author, in his Histoire des orthopteres, 

 recognizes two quite distinct groups. But the question arises here as to which 

 subdivision the name should be applied. The genus was formed by the 

 author, and first used by him in his Revue methodique des orthopteres (1831 ) 

 tor the reception of three species, C. italicus, morio, and sanguinipes. It is true 

 that afterward (1839), in his Histoire des orthopteres, Serville removed C. 

 morio to JSdipoda, as it was in fact no Acridian, and had been previously 

 named by Creutz (Entom. Versch.); also that he returned C. sanguinipes to 

 Ae r id i urn, thus leaving C. italicus as the only original representative of his 

 genus. But, in the mean time, Burmeister* changes the name to Caloptenus, 

 and includes in the genus, as limited and understood by him, not only italicus, 

 but also the American species femur-rubrum, femoratus, and bivittatus, besides 

 a number of other exotic species. If Serville's name was erroneous, then 

 Burmeister was as fully authorized to correct it as Dr. Stal, and it comes 

 from the hand of either really a new genus. But not only this : Serville 

 includes three species which are incongruous, each of which had been pre- 

 viously named, and two of which he afterward, in his Histoire des orthopteres, 

 removes. Stal speaks of this contention in regard to priority as puerile 

 and derogatory to science ; yet he clings to the name given by Serville, 

 although it is erroneous and has to be emended, making G. italicus the type. 

 Under these circumstances, and following out the spirit of his own 

 advice, as given in his introductory remarks, I shall not follow him in this 

 respect, because I do not think even the strictest construction of the law of 

 priority requires it, and because, to do so would inflict upon our nomencla- 

 ture a host of synonyms which can be avoided by retaining the name 

 Caloptenus, as given by Burmeister. Some of the species may have to be 

 removed to other genera. It is true that the peculiar characters selected 



* 1 am aware that some doubt as to priority in date of the Handbuch der Entomologie and Histoire 

 des orthopth-ea has recently been expressed ; but so long as it is generally conceded to the former, our 

 conclusions in regard to nomenclature must be based ujkiu that assumption 



