8(32 ZOOLOGY— INSECTS. 



and Truxalis is retained in the Fabrician sense with T. brevicornis (our 

 Pyrgomorpha brevicornis) as its type. If these old names, which have been so 

 long ignored, are now to be restored, then Stal is correct in replacing Acrida ; 

 and, although I doubt the expediency of such a course, yet, as the law of 

 priority justifies him, entomologists will probably accept the change. But 

 if this rule is to be rigidly enforced, what excuse has he to render for 

 utterly ignoring Walker's new genera and species where he is correct f 



Stal describes as new Scudder's CMoealtis viridis under the name Trux- 

 alis angusticornis. He describes a new species of Achurum from Mexico, 

 and informs me that he thinks my Tryxalis brevipennis belongs to the same 

 genus. I think it very probable he is correct in this. Saussure's Oxycory- 

 phus monteswma is transferred to a new genus, Syrbula, in which is also 

 placed a new Texan species. Stenobothrus is wholly ignored, and Gompho- 

 cerus, which he appears to have used in Freg. Fug. Mesa, in the sense in 

 which it is used by Borck, is here scattered among a number of new genera. 

 He gives Stetheophyma, Fisch., Arcyptera, Serv., Chrysochraon, Fisch., and 

 Gomphocerus, Thunb., as synonyms. 



Stenobothrus viatorius, Sauss., is removed to a new genus, Scyllina, which 

 has for its chief character the inequality in length of the spines of the poste- 

 rior tibia?. 



In (Edipodidce, the following changes are worthy of notice, and are of 

 interest to American entomologists. Tragocephala of Harris is retained 

 with T. viridi-fasciata as the type ; and ffi. sordida, Burm., and (E. costalis, 

 Scudd., are transferred to it. Tomonotus of Saussure is ignored, and a new 

 genus, Arphia, established for the reception of the following species found in 

 the United States : — T. sulphureus and T. tenebrosus; the latter being described 

 as a new species under the name A. sanguinaria. I can see no possible 

 excuse for this new genus, which corresponds very closely in its characters 

 with those given by Saussure, and especially as given in my Synopsis. If the 

 Acrida of Linnaeus and CaUiptenus of Serville are to be retained at every 

 sacrifice of convenience, why is it that the genera established by living 

 authors are treated so cavalierly ? There is no more reason why a Linnaean 

 or Thunbergian genus should be retained than one established by a living 

 author. In this case, I think Still's apparent desire to furnish new names to 



