590 APPENDIX. 
whether rightly or not, and, as I haye no hypothesis, I am perfectly open to 
conviction, 
“T have now somewhat to observe respecting the names of these parts, 
First as to your collare. Though this is not the thorax, I think we should still 
call it collare. This term is not here absolutely improper, as it is lite, though 
not in reality, a collar; it has been introduced by your ‘Monog. Apum Ang, 
and adopted by Illiger, and we shall not easily find a better. In Coleoptera, 
of course, we shall very rarely have occasion to make use of it, but in every 
other order it will be of constant occurrence. Dorsum, I think as before, is 
very objectionable, from being a word of such general import, and so often 
improperly used for tergum. Yor this part I think we should have some word 
equivalent either to our good English term, after-corselet, or to ante-scutellum, 
the coining of which I give up to you, the master of our mint. 
“T do not exactly recollect what parts we meant by lumbi, or interlumbium, 
If the former were intended for your quondam metathoraz, I think it is objec- 
tionable, as being a plural name for one flat surface, and because in anatomy 
the terms apply only to the sides of the lumbar region; but I see no objection 
to interlumbium for this part. We still want a name for the transverse part be- 
tween the scutellum and interlumbium. Might not this be the post-scutellum 
or something equivalent ? Hypochondria.—In referring to a system of anatomy 
I find that this term, as we use it, is anatomically incorrect, the hypochondria 
being, in fact, the sides of the epigastric region of the abdomen, but though in 
part covered by the false-ribs, forming no portion of the true pectus. As we 
apply the term epigastrium to the base of the abdomen, it will of course be 
highly improper to apply a term appropriated to the sides of the epigastrium 
to the pectus. On this account, and as Linné evidently in Cerambyx rubus 
applied this term to the whole sides of the postpectus (which was correct, ac- 
cording to his idéa of regarding that part as the epigastrium—sce Cantharis 
rufa) had not we better drop it, and adopt Knoch’s parapleura, which seems 
unobjectionable ? 
“T cannot guess what we meant by Intercosta, Femoralia, and Costule, though 
I very well remember giving those names to particular parts. But though I 
have since examined the postpectus of many Coleopterous insects, I see no 
parts but what may be referred to the peristethium, mesostethium, scapularia, 
and parapleura. ‘These, indeed, are sometimes crossed by apparent sutures, 
but Ido not think this is a sufficient reason for dividing them into more 
distinct parts. MKnoch’s meriaecew are clearly the hind coxm, Of course we 
have nothing to do with them. 
“ Squamula. —I stumbled lately upon an objection to the use of this term in 
the sense you have given to it in ‘Mon. Apum Ang.,’ viz., that Linné had 
applied it to the angular elevation of Formica, We should certainly, there- 
fore, have a distinct name. TIiliger’s name, tegula, does not seem very much 
amiss, as in Hymenoptera this part aptly enough may be compared to a little 
tile. Our English base-cover cannot be improved, 
“So much for objections. Besides which I have to notice two or three 
things that we yet seem to want names for. 1st. Should we not have a name 
for the upper wing-cases of Grylli, &c., which being of so different a substance 
can scarcely with propriety have the terms elytra and coleoptera applied to 
them, Illiger uses tegmina, but perhaps a better term might be selected. I 
perceive in a large foreign Gryllus, which doubtless you possess, a curious 
concave shell-like process, between the claws of the tarsi, to which neither 
pulvillus nor onychium is applicable. What shall it be called? Would it not 
be very convenient to haye a term signifying that the surface of any part of an 
insect is free from all inequality, in opposition to foveola, stria, &e.? Levis 
is not sufficient, as properly it Should be restricted to denote the absence of 
