Royal Physical Society. 77 



*** Antenna clavate ; posterior angles of thorax acute ; elytra not 

 striated. 

 [Anterior thighs alike in both sexes, the middle tarsi with the 

 first joint rarely dilated.) 



C. villosa = sericeus i Fab. [villosa, Lat.) (Ptomaphagus trun- 

 catus, Steph.) 



C. velox=velox, Erich. 



C.fumataf= ? (probably scitulus, Erich.) 



C. Watsoni =. fumatus, Erich. 



C. anisotomoides = anisotomoides, Sturm. 



C. JViUdnii=prcecox, Erich. 



C. brunneus — Colon {Mylcechus) brunneus, auct. 



The next author who went over the genus was Stephens. As 

 he finally left it in his Manual, it contains all S pence's species, 

 besides five of his own, and three which had been described by 

 Mr. Newman in the ' Entomological Magazine/ between the 

 commencement of the appearance of his ' Illustrations ' and 

 the publication of his ' Manual/ 



in Waterhouse's collection, and by three specimens of grandicollis and one 

 of nigrita in Stephens's collection. 



t This name (fumata) has been universally applied to the species com- 

 monly known as the fumatus of Erich, and other authors, but a comparison 

 of Spence's description of it and his next species, Watsoni, shows that the 

 latter is what is now known as, fumatus, and that the former is most pro- 

 bably scitulus, Erich. In his description of Watsoni Spence says, " In 

 colour this species does not much differ from the preceding, but is fur- 

 nished with other characters strikingly distinctive. The antennae are 

 shorter and thicker " (which is the case in the true fumatus). He also 

 gives the last joint as pale, while he says nothing of this distinctive cha- 

 racter in describing the preceding species. The rest of the description 

 also corresponds with the view I have taken. I am perhaps wrong in 

 using the expression " true fumatus." The true fumatus should by the 

 rule of priority be what Spence had under his eye when he described it, 

 but I think we are getting out of all bounds in our stickling for priority. 

 If an author describes a species so loosely that it cannot be recognized 

 from his description, so that subsequent authors misapply or ignore his 

 name, while on their part they give a recognizable description, I cannot see 

 on what principle of justice or propriety we are to be called upon to hold 

 by the unrecognizable name instead of the recognizable, nor why an author 

 (be he living or dead, or great or small) should be allowed to supplement 

 his inadequate description by a reference to the typical specimens in his 

 cabinet from which the descriptions were taken, — a practice now in vogue, 

 against which I take this opportunity to enter my protest. Notwith- 

 standing the claims of priority therefore, I do not propose to invert or 

 disturb the generally adopted names of fumatus and scitulus. I have 

 pointed out how the case obviously stands, and I leave to the advocates of 

 priority the responsibility of introducing the confusion to which I demur. 



