522 JOURNAL OF SCIENCE. 
mixture of French blue, in the proportion of a teaspoonful to a tumbler 
of water:” would not a certain admixture of plaster of Paris be an 
improvement? 
We think there can be no doubt that this work will form the indue 
important aid both to the teacher and student of Biology which has 
appeared since the publication of the book it is designed to illustrate. 
Danee ea 
NOTE ON NOMENCLATURE OF NEW ZEALAND LUCANIDZ. 
In the “‘ Comptes rendus de la Société entomologique de belgique,” 
February, 1884, I published-a brief note intended to assist one of the 
members of the Society who is engaged in the very useful task of 
preparing a Supplement to the Munich Catalogue of the.above family of 
Coleoptera. In this note I attempted to rectify some errors and 
omissions made by the author of the ‘ Manual of New Zealand 
Coleoptera,” and in doing this I endeavoured to avoid any remarks that 
were superfluous for the object I had in view and that might cause 
annoyance to the writer mentioned. In the “ New Zealand Journal of 
Science,” March 1885, appears a note on the subject in question, by the 
author of the Manual, intended to exculpate himself, but which contains 
several errors and misconceptions, so that I feel it incumbent on me to 
point out such of them as can be done ina brief space. Early in the 
note he says that his three species of Dorcus (viz., D. abditus, planus 
and Stewart) “were published before L. desmaresti and L. menalcas.” 
This is erroneous; his three species were published at the end of 1880 
and in 1881 (or 1882 I do not know which), while ZL. menalcas dates 
from 1855 and ZL. desmaresti from 1881, so that we do not know 
whether the latter has priority over some of Broun’s. species names or 
not; and on this point I have never expressel any opinion but have 
given each of the three species a separate place, appending the query 
“on n, sp.” to shew that the question of the validity of these names 
requires investigation. 
The author of the note in “New Zealand Journal of Science” 
shortly after this states “it may be proved” that White’s name of 
Dorcus punctulatus “had” priority over Hope’s Nove-zealandie. The 
actual dates of the works where these. names are published are however, 
as correctly given in the Munich Catalogue, Hope 1845, White 1846, 
so that the burden of proof clearly rests with him who asserts that 1846 
“had” priority over 1845. 
The writer of the note I am discussing says that I seem or affect to 
be in doubt as to the genus of his Ceratognathus zealandicus, but that 1 
ought not to be so seeing that I received from him eight years ago’ 
specimens he presented me with. I am obliged to him for this latter 
piece of information; I received from him some years before he wrote 
the Manual and without any name either of genus or species, a single 
specimen of a Mitophyllus, which I may from the information now 
given us, presume to be the species in question, though on comparing 
this example with his description I remain thoroughly in doubt as to 
