6118 



Entomoloyical Society. 



referred to the same species. This has been done by the late Mr. Doubleday, who has 

 changed Ornithoptera Bemus, a name which for fifty years has been invariably borne 

 by one well-known species, into 0. Panthous, a name which for a still longer period has 

 been applied to the female of 0. Priamus. Such a change would be most inadvisable, 

 even were the principle on which it was made a good one ; whereas it is one which 

 gives, at it were, a premium to error. Linnaeus described the female of Priamus as a 

 distinct species (Panthous) and Eemus as the male of Panthous. Cramer corrected the 

 latter error and figured the two sexes of Remus correctly, giving the species for the 

 first lime a distinct name. This name it appears to me cannot be changed for that of 

 Linnaeus, who erroneously supposed the species to be the same as one he had previously 

 named, although that name has been reduced to a synonym. The two errors of Lin- 

 neeus should not be allowed to take precedence of Cramer, who first correctly named 

 the species. The question here raised is of importance because an analogous case is 

 now open for decision. P. Darsius of G. R. Gray was previously figured by 

 Doubleday as the male of Amphimedon. Now, Amphimedon is certainly the female 

 of Helena, and, if the rule holds good, the new species Darsius must lake the old name 

 of Amphimedon, just as Remus has been made by Messrs. E. Doubleday and G. R. 

 Gray, to take the name of Panthous. Such a practice will certainly not be generally 

 followed, and I would humbly suggest that it is one of the duties of an Entomological 

 Society, to check, by an expression of their opinion, all that tends still further to con- 

 fuse the nomenclature and synonymy, 

 "Amboyna, January 1, 1858." 



The Secretary read " Descriptions of six New British Neuroptera sent by 

 Mr. Dale to the British Museum," by Dr. Hagen ; and the following paper by Mr. 

 Newman : — 



Note on Scolytus destructor, 



" Having heard from Mr, Stainton that the Royal Botanic Society had awarded 

 a gold medal to our fellow-member. Captain Cox, for certain successful experiments 

 in recovering elm trees from the attacks of Scolytus destructor, I was delighted to 

 receive for the press that elaborate paper with which the Society was favoured at its 

 last meeting. That paper is published in our 'Proceedings,' and will afford to 

 the world abundant proof that we are now regarding Entomology in a utilitarian as 

 as well as a scientific spirit. ' It is,' as the writer observes, ' peculiarly fitting that 

 Science should step in and prove that over one pest at least we have power, and if not 

 made use of the fault lies entirely with the public' I cannot sufficiently regret my 

 absence from so interesting a meeting, since, had I been present, I should have en- 

 deavoured to elicit still further information from a gentleman who has so successfully 

 studied this important branch of rural economy; more especially, as the Parisians, in 

 their bungling attempts to employ the draw-shave, have sacrificed the finest elm trees 

 around the French metropolis. 1 may perhaps be allowed to state, touching the 

 bibliography of Scolytus destructor, that I think Captain Cox scarcely goes back far 

 enough, when he dales the knowledge of its economy from 1840: previously to that 

 year the late M. Audouin had thoroughly mastered its history ; and six years earlier 

 still, an obscure writer in the 'Entomological Magazine' (i. 42o), under the assumed 

 name of Rusticus ': — the habit of assuming names cannot be sufficiently reprobated — 

 desciibcd its economy so minutely as to induce the idea that Captain Cox must have 



