THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



[July 



to the controvessy. Mr. Cockerill, according to the theory he 

 advances, has evidently erred in placing niy name after the term 

 Cnspidia. If the so-called Laws of Priority still hold good, and, in 

 the absence of a proposer, the person who first applies the term to a 

 class of insect in a generic sense is to be declared the sponsor, let us 

 keep to the rule. By referring to page 130 of the Record, under 

 the signature of Dr. Buckell (dated June 2nd, 1890), and page 136, 

 Rev. B. Smith (June 30th), two instances of usage prior to my report 

 will be found. It must, therefore, be plain to anyone that the "Bibli- 

 ography" is not drawn up according to the Entomological " Cocker." 

 Respecting other assertions, and the inferences drawn therefrom, I 

 really must decline to entertain them.- — G. A. Lewcock. 



The puzzling and perplexing errors referred to above might 

 appear to have been specially contrived for the bewilderment of the 

 future synonymist, and it must be distinctly understood that we 

 do not endorse all the statements contained in the communications of 

 our esteemed correspondents Briefly stated, the case stands thus :— 



Dr. Chapman, in Map^azine No. i, divided the genus A crony eta into 

 three groups, from certain cliaracteristics observable in the pupal 

 stage. To these groups he gave names, but he did not, in doing so, 

 propose to create new genera, and as a matter of fact he has not in 

 any case, used these pupal terms in a generic sense. Netherless the 

 terms have crept into use, as if of generic value, and their authorship 

 attributed, not to Dr. Chapman, but to three other gentlemen men- 

 tione.l in "Bibliography" of the same Magazine. 



Mr. A. E. Butler, in Magazine No. 2, referring to a former division 

 of the genus by Hubner, and to a paper by himself on the same 

 subject printed elsewhere, states t!iat Hubner's names have priority 

 over the new names. 



Mr. Lewcock, in Magazine No. 3, (in which he has editorial 

 responsibihtes very properly repudiaties the authorship of the term 

 Cnspidia, and this he does without expressing any opinion as to the 

 desirability of dividing the genus, his encomiums being given to the 

 manner in which Dr. Chapman had worked out the life histories. Mr. 

 L, shows further, in the above note, that the term Cuspidia did not 

 first appear over his name. 



Mr. Tutt, in the next place, in his new work on Varieties, uses 

 Dr. Chapman's pupal terms, but only as of sub-generic value giving that 



