30 



erate enemv, for in most instances I find the germ is devoui-ed. renderino; tlie Leans 

 as worthless for seed as they are for food. 



TVe liave for some time intended to discnss this matter in print, but 

 in the meantime Dr. Lintner in his Seventh Eeport on the Insects of 

 Xew York has gone qnite fnlly into the matter in his nsnal thorough 

 and characteristic manner, and has repnbhshed Fitch's letter to the 

 secretary of the society above mentioned. 



Dr. Lintner doubts the propriety of adopting Say's names for this 

 Bean Weevil, and although he writes, under protest. Say's name olso- 

 letus at the head of his article, thus following the nomenclature pre- 

 sented in Dr. Horn's Revision of the Bruchidae, he is nevertheless of 

 the opinion that custom, and even the ruJes of nomenclature, would 

 justify us in writing ^r»(?7n<s /rt&ce Fitch. TVe are so fnlly in accord 

 with his views that we cpiote the following paragTaph: 



It Tvould better accord vrith custom and rules of nomenclature if, instead of 

 clinging pertinaciously to Say's name in the behef that -o-e kno-^the insect to ^vhich 

 it Tras applied, that it be rejected on the ground of its having been accompanied 

 with merely a definition — without description such as leaves no room for reasonable 

 doubt. Such rejection has been repeatedly made, as notably with scores of Walter's 

 "species.^- In that event — as the description of Dr. Fitch unmistakably indicates 

 our Bean Weevil^ and as it has priority of andfnlly accords with the rai-icoi-nis of 

 LeConte, the fat ce of Eiley. and the ohsoletus of Horn — ''olsoJetus Say" would give 

 place to falcF Fitch. 



The reasons which we gave in 1S71 for considering the Bean "Weevil 

 distinct from ohsoJefus seem to us as good to-day as they did theu. 

 and we have since obtained substantial iu direct evidence against Dr. 

 Horn's claim. Say mentions having found ohsoletus on a species of 

 Astragalus from which he also obtained Apion segnli^es. We have 

 always believed that ohsoletus would be rediscovered, and have for years 

 sought to ascertain more of the food plants of our Bruchidie. Xow in 

 Mr. Schwarz's collection we have a Bruchus in connection with this 

 very ^^;f 0/2 segnipes on Teplirosia virginiana near Washington, and this 

 Bruchus agrees in size and all other characteristics fully with Say's 

 description of ohsoletus, and farther corresponds, as we distinctly 

 recollect, with the specimen thus marked which we referred to as hav- 

 tag seen in Walsh's old collection, thus indicating that the species 

 occurs likewise in the Mississippi Valley. With all due resjDect to 

 authority, therefore, we think that the case against our Bean Weevil 

 being ohsoletus is sufficiently made out. and that we must not follow 

 Dr. Horn in his rather arbitrary conclusion. In point of fact, as all 

 who have gone over the descrij)tions carefully wiU admit, ohtectus Say, 

 which, precedes ohsoletus in the descriptions, is more plainly referable 

 to oiu' Bean Weevil. Under the strict law of priority, therefore, our 

 Bean Weevil should be written Bruchus ohtectus Say. 



In reference to the European nomenclature of our Bean Weevil^ 

 Baudi. in his monograph of the European Bruchidte ^Deutsch. Ent. 



