1933 ] Cyathomyrmex, New Name for Cyathocephalus 99 
years later the genus Cyathocephalus appeared in the 
Zoological Record, this time having been brought to light 
by Riggenbach when he described a second species in the 
genus. It is natural to suppose that the name Cyatho- 
cephalus would have been listed in the Record’s Index of 
Genera covering the period from 1891 to 1900. Actually 
it occurs in the Index for 1901 to 1910. The genus does not, 
of course, appear in Sherborn’s Index Animalium since at 
present this colossal publication deals only with descrip- 
tions made prior to 1850. Heider includes Kessler’s Cyatho- 
cephalus in his Nomenclator Animalium citing Braun’s 
paper as his source. I am at a loss to account for the ab- 
sence of Emery’s synonymic subgenus in this publication 
for, as will be subsequently shown, there is no reason for 
the omission of the subgenus Cyathocephalus in any list 
made after 1921. 
So much for the taxonomic history of the original Cyatho- 
cephalus. Let us now consider the case of Emery’s 
synonym. In 1915 Emery published a brief paper in the 
Bulletin of the Entomological Society of France entitled 
“Names of Subgenera and Genera proposed for the Sub- 
family Myrmicinae.” In an explanatory preface Emery 
states that the paper presents a summary of work prepared 
for inclusion in Wytsman’s Genera Insectorum. At that 
time this publication had been suspended on account of the 
World War and it is easy to appreciate Emery’s anxiety to 
get his work into print. It may be questioned, however, 
that any circumstances justify the means which he took to 
insure the priority of his classification. In his paper, three 
pages in length Emery established eleven new subgenera. 
Five of these were delimited at least by a line or two of 
description but the remaining six were set up by simply 
designating a type. Emery’s position was, nevertheless, 
technically secure since all of his subgenotypes were pre- 
viously described species. Regardless of what attitude we 
take as to the propriety of this procedure there can be no 
question that Emery made a serious mistake by incorporat- 
ing the names of six of his new subgenera in the text of the 
article in such a manner that it is virtually impossible to 
discover their existence. Nor does Emery’s culpability end 
