112 THE FLORIST AND 
would have suflficed, and none in others which should have been included, 
a reference to the catalogue accounts for the fact, the book being, to a great 
extent, an enumeration of the species placed in the cabinet and named by 
Dr. Fitch. Thus, Dr. Emmons has followed the error of Dr. Fitch in 
Omophron, and he has a species, ^^ Uuchlora coelehs," (named from its fine 
green color,) and we find that Dr. Fitch has the same ; his supposed genus 
has been abandoned, and the species quoted by Fitch and Emmons never 
belonged to it. Moreover, in his execrable application of English names to 
insects. Dr. Emmons has given to this genus of green insects the name of 
brown beetle! The insect in question is probably Anomala lucicola of 
Fabricius. The Upis pennsylv aniens and StapJiylinus cyanipennis of 
both these authors are in the wrong genus, but Fitch quotes for the former 
the correct author, Degeer, whilst Dr. Emmons is sufficiently original to 
quote Dejean, who never described or quoted it under this name. Har'pa- 
lus pleuriticus is credited to Rafinesque, who never wrote on this genus. 
Highly as we esteem the labors of Dr. Fitch on the Hessian fly, we are 
very far from regarding him with the Rural New Yorker, as at the head of 
American Entomological science. We could name half a dozen who stand 
far above him. Authors who with Fitch, followed by Emmons, would place 
Philonthus cyanipennis in the genus Staphylinus, are twenty years behind 
the age, and must have a very moderate knowledge of entomology and 
entomological books. 
Emmons' " descriptions" are abominable ; but this might have been reme- 
died by citing the works of entomologists, (with volume and page,) where 
descriptions could be found. But he has, in very many cases, suppressed 
authorities, even when he has appropriated their figures. Many of the 
genera cannot be determined from the figures, whilst the short descriptions 
of a line or two, (entomologists often give fifteen or twenty lines,) are often 
quoted from the synopsis of Westwood and Stephens, even the scope of 
which he has entirely misconceived. Those works were intended for British 
genera, and when the family characters were determined, it was evident that 
for a family containing but two British genera, a generic character showing 
their difi'erence respectively, would be sufficient ; but if there were six 
genera, the differences between them would have to be stated in such a 
manner as to distinguish each one from all the rest, and yet they might not 
distinguish any of the six from foreign genera. In the case of Omophron, 
Dicaelus, and Sphaerodorus, no description is given, evidently because they 
are not British- forms, and therefore not found in Westwood & Stephens. 
Thus Westwood's characters for Bembidium are " Thorax truncate, cordate, 
