BUFFALO SOCIETY OF NATURAI, SCIENCES 507 



the assumption that spumaria Linn, is the same as alni Fallen 

 ( = spumaria of Germar, the first species and allowably the 

 type of Aphrophora). No further change is made in the genus 

 until 1810 when Latreille (Consid. General, page 434) in giving 

 a list of the genera "avec l'indication de l'espece qui leur sert 

 de type" names sanguinolenta Linn, as such type of Cercopis. 

 If I rightly understand the International Code the direct 

 naming of the type in 1810 must take precedence over the mere 

 naming of an "example" in 1801. Practically this same view 

 is taken by S. A. Rohwer in his recent paper on the genotypes 

 of the Tenthredinoidea (U. S. Dept. of Agric, Bureau of Ent, 

 Technical Series No. 20, part 2, 1911.) 



I am unable to discover any justification for Stal's naming 

 cam if ex as the type of this genus in 1869 (Hemip Fabr. , n, 

 page 11 ) As sanguinolenta is the type of Triecphora that 

 genus must fall as a synonym of Cercopis. 



Genus Monecphora, A. & S. 



I can see nothing to be gained by uniting the four genera 

 of Amyot et Serville, Tomaspis, Triecphora (= Cercopis Fabr.), 

 Monecphora and Sphenorhina as was done by Stal in 1866, 

 (Hemip. Africana, vol. iv, page 56). While closely related their 

 general facies and distribution are sufficiently distinct and they 

 have as good right to the distinguished as many of the generally 

 accepted genera. It seems to me that a series of species in any 

 of the larger generic groups which separates out from the 

 others in a synoptical key by some clearly defined character is 

 entitled to generic standing if a student wishes to so designate 

 it. In many cases other students would doubtless call such a 

 series a subgenus but in larger plastic groups where Nature 

 absolutely refuses to draw a distinct line of demarcation 

 between the genera we must use such divisions as will most 

 facilitate the determination of our species. 



Cercopis {Monecphora) schack Fabr. does not seem to have 

 been recognized by later entomologists. It was described from 

 "America septentrionalis" and may refer to some variety of 

 Monecphora bicincta Say. 



I cannot follow Ball in uniting Monecphora infer ans Walk, 

 and Sphenorhina simnlans Walk, with bicincta, they seem to me 

 to represent a distinct species. 



