SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 241 
T. cultricolle, Sauss., but it differs so distinctly in the form of the 
-prosternal spine, with which it agrees entirely with 7’, securicolle, that 
it is to the latter species that I refer it. De Saussure gives the leneth 
of body of the female as 58mm., and of the pronotum as 25mm., but 
in the specimen before me, the body is only 46mm., and the pronotum 
14mm., which are about the dimensions of 7. securicolle. It may 
possibly be a new species, falling between these two, but I do not 
wish to base a novelty upon a single female. 7’. securicolle has been 
recorded from Syria, and 7. cultricolle from Turkestan, Aschabad. 
Locusropra.—Locustidae. Locusta caudata, Charp.—One ? ; common 
in south-eastern Europe and south-western Asia. Gry~tLopEa.— 
Gryllus desertus, Pall.-—One ¢, one @ ; recorded from Asia Minor 
and Turkestan. Common in south-eastern Europe. Gryllus frontallis, 
Fieb.—One @. Common in south-eastern Europe, and also recorded 
from Syria and Turkestan. Gryllus domesticus, L.—Two 9? s.— 
M. Burr, F.Z.S., F.E.S. 
SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 
THE MULTIPLICATION OF IDENTICAL SPECIFIC NAMES WITHIN THE SAME 
ramity.—I should lke to say a word as to the multiplication of 
identical specific names within the same family. The rule no doubt 
stands that the same specific name must not occur twice in the same 
genus, but this rule originates in reference not to our present genera, 
but to Linnean genera, that is, we may say to superfamilies, when 
applied to the lepidoptera. Amonest the Lithosians mentioned by Sir 
George Hampson in the second volume of his Catalogue, there are more 
than 380 instances of names being repeated in the first half of the 
alphabet; often the same name is repeated several times as, bicolor (8), 
caerulescens (4), fasciata (6), grisea (4), &e. The author is as frequently 
responsible for these repetitions as any one else. No doubt he 
does this in good and numerous company. I nevertheless consider 
that it is wrong, and that some of the care insisted on not to repeat 
generic names should be appled to specific names within wider mits 
than are now recognised. It seems to be utterly forgotten that the 
Species is in some degree a natural entity, whilst the genus is much 
more a matter of opinion and convenience, not to say caprice. It is a 
label of classification, whilst the specific name distinguishes an actual 
separate thing.—T. A. CuHapman, M.D., F.Z.S., F.E.S., Betula, 
Reigate. 
THE TYPES OF THE GENERA GoRTYNA AND Ocuria.—lI have just 
discovered, too late for use in the ‘* London Fauna List’ of the City 
of London Entomological Society, that Professor Grote, in fixing 
micacea as the type of Gortyna (Ent. Record, vi., p. 29) has 
overlooked one authority, whose action fortunately enables us to 
retain the familiar use of this name and of Hydroecia, Gn. Samouelle 
(Hntom. Compend., p. 252 [1819]) indicates flavago (ochracea, Hb.) 
and rutilayo (wmbra, Hin.) as types of Gortyna, while Hiubner’s 
restriction to micacea can hardly date back further than 1822 (the 
portion of the “ Zutriige’’ published in 1822, is cited freely in this 
portion of the ‘‘ Verzeichniss’’). Therefore Samouelle’s action has 
priority, and the further restriction of later authors to ochracea is perfectly 
legitimate. As regards the name (Uchria, used by Professor Grote for 
