\ THE ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL. VOL. IV, FROM .4PRIL, 1828, TO M.4Y, 1829. EDITED BY N. A. VIGORS, Esq., A.M., F.R., L., G.S., & M.R.I.A. Secretary of the Zoological Society : WITH THE CO-OPERATION OF THOMAS BELL, Esq., F.R. & L.S. E. T. BENNETT, Esq., F.L.S. J. E. BICHENO, Esq., F.R.S., Sec. L.S. W. J. BRODERIP, Esq., F.R.S., Sec. G.S. J. G. CHILDREN, Esq., F.R.S.L.&E. Major-Gen. THOS. HARDWICKE, F.R. & L.S. T. HORSFIELD, M.D., F.R. &L.S. Rev. W. KIRBY, A.M., F.R. & L.S. J. De C. SOWERBY, Esq., F.L.S. G. B. SOWERBY, F.L.S. W. YARRELL, Esq., F.L.S. iBiontron: Printed hy E. J. HUrling, 20, Ironmonger Lane, CheafsiiU ; AND PUBLISHED BY G. B. SOWERBY, 15G, REGENT STREBT, 1829. 4- CONTRIBUTORS TO THE FOURTH VOLUME OP THE ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL. E. N. Bancroft, M.D., Corresp. Memb. Z. S., &c. E. T. Bennett, Esq., F.L.S., &c. Rev. M. G. Berkeley, M.A. John Blackwall, Esq., F.L.S., &c. W. J. Broderip, Esq., B.A., F.R. & L.S., Sec. G.S., &c. H. T. Colebrooke, Esq., F.R., L. & G.S„ &c. M. G. P. Deshayes. David Douglas, F.L.S., &c. J. E. Gray, Esq., F.G.S., &c. Rev. Lansdown Guilding, B.A., F.L. & G.S., M.W.S., &c. J. G. Guthrie, Esq., F.R.S., &c. John Hancock, Esq., Corresp. Memb. Z.S., &c. Maj.-Gen. T. Hardwicke, F.R. & L.S., &c. Charles Heineken, M.D., &c. T. H. Holberton, Esq., M.R.C.S., &c. Thomas Horsfield, M.D., F.R. & L.S., &c. Sir William Jardine, Bart., F.R.S.E., F.L.S., M.W.S., &c. George Johnston, M.D., Fell. Roy. Coll. Surg. Edinb., &c. Capt. P. P. King, R.N., F.R. & L.S., &c. G. Tradescant Lay, Esq. Rev. R. T. Lowe. W. S. MacLeay, Esq., A.M., F.L.S., &c. William Ogilby, Esq., B.A. J. Pelerin, Esq. John Richardson, M.D., F,R., & L.S., &c. John Scouler, M.D. Andrew Smith, M.D., M.W.S., Corresp. Memb. Z.S., &c. G. B. Sowerby, F.L.S., &c. N. A. Vigors, Esq., A.M., F.R., L., & G.S., M.R.I.A., Sec. Z.S., &c. J. 0. Westwood, Esq., F.L.S., &c. H. Woods, Esq., F.Z.S., A.L.S., &c. William Yarrell, Esq., F.L.S., &c. CONTENTS. No. XTII. April— July, 1828. Art. L Observations on Rkinopomastus of Dr. Smth, a new Gems among the Promeropidce, By Sir W. Jardine, Bart.^ ZR.S.E., F.L.S,, 3I,TF.S.,^e. , . . . 1 Art. H. On the Chalcididts, By h 0. Westwood, Esq,^ F.L.S,, Sfc. . . 3 Art. III. Observations on the Fishes contained in the Collection of the Zoological Society, By E. T. Bennett, Esq., F,L.S., ^c. 31 Art. IV. On Dichotomous and Quinary .Arrangements in Matu-- ral History. By Henry Thomas Colebrooke, J^*^'., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.G.S., Sfc. 43 Art. V. *^ Reply to some Observations ofM, Virey in the " BuU *' letin des Sciences J\faturelles, 1825." By W. S. MacLeay, Esq., A.M., F.L.S., ^c. In a Letter to the Editor 47 Art. VI. Contributions to the British Fauna. By George Johnston, M^D., Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Sfc. 52 Art. VII. Observations on the Animals hitherto found in the Shells of the genus Argonauta. By W. J. Broderip, Esq., B.A., F.R.S., F.L.S., Sec. G.S., Sfc 57 ArI". VIII. Additions and Corrections to a Monograph on Cy~ prcba, a genus of Testaceous Mofhisca. By John Edward Gray, Esq., F.G.S., §c. 6^ CONTENTS. Page. Art. IX. On some new species of Pentatrematites, By G. B. SowERBY, F.L.S., ^c 89 Art. X. Extracts from a Letter addressed by Capt. Phillip Parker King, R.K., F,R.S, and L.S., to N. A. Vigors, Esq,, on the »/lnimals of the Straits of Magellan 91 Art. XI. Observations on some of the Mammalia contained in the Museum of the Zoological Society. By N. A. Vigors, Esq., M.J., F.R.S., Sfc, and Thomas Horsfield, M.D. F.R.S., Sfc 107 Art. XIL Observations on the Loves of the Ants and the Aphides. By Major Gen. Hardwicke, F.R.S., Sfc 113 Art. XIII. Analytical Notices of Books: A Descriptive Catalogue of the Lepidopterous In- sects contained in the Museum of the Honourable East India Company, ^c. By Thomas Horsfield, M.D., F.R.S., 8fc 115 The Genera of Recent and Fossil Shells. By G. B. Sowerby, F.L.S., No. XXX 125 Art. XIV. Proceedings of Learned Societies on subjects con- nected with Zoology. Linnean Society . . . . t^.',. . . . 126 Zoological Club of the Linnean Society . . , . . . 131 EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES. Page Plate L — Rhinopomastus Smithii 3 Fig, 1. — Represents the bill seen from above with the incumbent scales in the proper place. 2. One of the scales removed. 3. Left foot seen from above. 4. Hallux. 5. Bill of the natural size, showing the scale removed and the true membrane covering the nostrils. Plate IL^^Fig, 1. Diplolepis depressa 16 2. Cheiropachus quadrum 25 For remaining references to this plate 29 Plate HL — The principal figure represents the shell of Argonauta Argo with its inhabitant of the natural size. The ova which occupy the greater part of the shell are seen distinctly in the fractured aperture and rising above the edge imder one of the arms, and feintly through the medium of the shell 57 Fig, 1. — h one of the ova with its filament. 2. — The shell of an ovum broken, with the contents diffused. 3. — A portion of the same ovum, shewing distinctly its external surface. These three figures, which are very highly magnified, are re- ferred to in Dr. Roget's letter. 4. — A bunch of the ova of the natural size. 5. — An ovum highly magnified. 6. — One of the acetabula magnified. Plate IV. — Sciurus Rafflesii 113 CONTENTS No. XIV. July— October, 1828. Page Art. XV. On the supposed identity of Whitebait and Shad. By William Yarrell, Esq., F.L.S 137 Art. XVI. On the recent Species of the genus Ovulum. By G.B. SowERBY, F.L.S., Sfc 145 Art. XVII. Description of a new species of Cyprcsa. By W. J. Broderip, Esq., B.A., F.R.S., F.L.S., Sec. G.S., S^c. . . 163 Art. XVIII. Observations on the Zoology of the Carib Trichotropis bicarinata, two views of the animal. two views of the Shell. 6.> ^. V Ditto, 7.5 8. Ditto, the operculum. Plate X.* Fig. 1.— Head of an Indian Child ...... 306 2. The Cradle * .... 308 Plate XL*— Two views of an adult Skull ....... 306 Plate XIL— Pica CoUiei 353 Plate XHL— Felis maculata 381 * The Plates X. and XI. are accidentally referred to in pp. 306 and 308 as Tab. IX. and X. CONTENTS. No. XVI. January— May, 1829. Page Art. LI. A Letter to J. E. Bicheno, Esq., F.R.S., in examina- tion of his Paper " On Systems and Methods,'''' in the Linnean Transactions. By W. S. MacLeay, Esq., A.M., F.L.S., Sfc 401 Art. LII. Contributions to the British Fauna. By George Johnston, M.D., Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Sfc 416 Art. LIII. Observations on the Reproduction of the Members in Spiders and Insects. By Charles Heineken, M.D. . . 422 Art. LIV. Contributions to the Katural History of South Africa, Sfc By Andrew Smith, M.D., M.W.S., Corresponding Member of the Zoological Society; Honorary Member of the Mineralogical Society of Jena ; Superintendant of the South African Museum; and Assistant Surgeon to the Forces . .433 Art. LV. On the Fish known in Jamaica as the Sea-Devil. By E. N. Bancroft, M.D., Corresponding Member of the Zoo- logical Society, ^c 444 Art. LVI. Observations on a Species of Pteropus from Bonin. By G. Tradescant Lay, Esq 457 Art. LVII. On the structure of the Beak and its Muscles in the Crossbill, (Loxia curvirostra.) By William Yarrell, Esq., F.L.S., Sfi:. 459 CONTENTS. Art. LVIII. Remarks on some English Fishes, with JVotices of three Species, new to the British Fauna. By William Yar- RELL, Esq., F.L.S., Sfc 465 Art. LIX. On the Mus Barharns of Linnceus. By E. T. Ben- nett, Esq., F.L.S., Sfc 472 Art. LX. Notice of Ceratitis Citriperda, an Insect very destruc-' live to Oranges. By W. S. MacLeay, Esq., A.M., F.L.S., Sfc, in a Letter to the Editor 475 Art. LXI. Analytical JVotices of Books 483 Transactions of the Linnean Society of London. Vol. XVI., Part I .♦ . . 483 Curtis' British Entomology . 494 Gray^s Spicilegia Zoologica 496 x\rt. LXII. Proceedings of Learned Societies on subjects connected with Zoology 499 Art. LXIII. Scientific Kotices 524 EXPLANATION OF THE PLATES. Page PlateXIV.— A. HeartofTestudoIndica 322 Fig, 1 — 7. Head and Tongue of the Crossbill (Loxia curvi rostra) 459 Fig. i. Head of the Crossbill; side view. a. tempo- ral muscle ; h. great pyramidal muscle. 2. Head viewed from below, b. great pyrami- dal muscle ; c. c. pterygoid muscles ; d,cL graciles muscles. 3. Head viewed from the side; a. pterygoid process ; b, os omoideum ; c. os quadra- tum ; d, d. os jugale. 4. Head viewed from behind; a. right tempo- ral muscle ; b. great pyramidal muscle, 5. Lower jaw, side view; a. cavity for articu- , lation ; b. b. coronoid processes. 6. Tongue seen from above ; a. homy scoop ; b. b. extensor muscles. 7. Tongue, side view ; a. horny scoop ; b. ex- tensor muscles ; c. flexor muscle. 8 — 11. Legs of Gammarus spinipes . . .417 8. Second pair of hands. 9. The first leg. 10. The second ditto. 11. The third ditto. Plate XV. — Ceratitis Citriperda 475 Plate XVI.— Solea Pegusa 467 Plate XVn.—Mus Barbarus 472 THE ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL. April'-July, 1828. Art. I. Observations on JRhmopomastiis of Dr. Smith, a new Genus among the Promeropidce, By Sir W. Jar dink, Bart,, F, R, S. E., F. L, S,, M. W, S., Sfc. This new form,- which Dr. Smith has lately placed in the South African Museum as the t3^e of a separate genus, was sent to me a few months since for examination by that zealous Naturalist. In the notes remitted with the collection which accompanied it, the characters upon which the generic distinctions will rest are merely mentioned, and I am therefore now induced to make them out at more length, and to offer them for the use of the Zoological Journal. The species from which Dr. Smith has formed his genus is the only one he has yet met with; and three specimens only have been seen by him. The last procured was remitted to myself, and from it the repre- sentations of the characters for the accompanying plate have been taken. It must be placed among the Promeropidce, and would formerly have made part of the Prcmerops of Brisson ; differing essentially, however, in the curious and I believe peculiar structure of the nostrils, which, in ad- dition to the usual membrane that covers those of a similar formation, are again protected by an incumbent scale, or operculum, which nearly con- ceals the opening. The true membrane also is detached, and the nostrils are quite pervious, while in Promerops they are at once pierced in the substance of the bill, and have no covering membrane. The bill will form the character of next importance; in Dr. Smith's genus it is slender Vol. IV. /B 2 Sir W. Jardiiie on a new genus of Promeropidee. and rounded; in Promerops it is of very considerable strength, particu- larly towards the base, is nearly triangular, and the culmen is flattened. In the form of the tarsi and feet, in the structure of the plumage, the colouring and markings, the two genera will nearly accord, and the cha- racters thus blending will assist the passage to adjoining groups. The bird has been placed in the S. African Museum under the specific name of Capensis; but this being in many respects inapphcable, and being un- published, I have thought the name now given was a just tribute to the merits of a person so interested in every department of Natural History, and who is certainly entitled to it as a discoverer of the species. Genus Rhinopomastus, Smith. Char. Gen. Rostrum elongatum, incurvum, gracile, teretiusculum, basi trigonum. J\/'ares basales, mediae, perviae, membrana semi-clausge scutelloque incumbente tectae. j^lce mediocres. Cauda gradata, elongata. Pedes insessores, mediocres; tarsis brevissimis, acrotarsio scu- tulato, paratarsiointegro; digito exteriore ad secundam phalangem connexo, interiore libero, acropodio scutu- lato; halluce robusto; unguibus validis, compressis, hal- lucis validiore. Typus genericus. Rhinopomastus Smithii, mihi. Rhinopomastus Smithii. R. supra chalybeo violaceoque nitore luce varians, subtus obscurd niger. Tab. I. The length of this species is about 1 1 J inches, that of the bill nearly If. The whole plumage is loose and unconnected as in the true Promerops, The upper parts, including the wings and tail, are fine steel blue, with vio- let and greenish reflections, varying with the light; the under parts are entirely dull greenish black, on the throat and breast slightly tinged with green reflections. The wings are of considerable power, the greater co- ^©©logical JomTiua,T©l JToELlL _ ///u H p/^■(^'^^^nJtu.j t^mf//fn . ^^ifm/irj-Jim'. F^r/t Zois>I&^enl aJoTttriLal^U^ELlL / /i'/if>7o/'iOi?rnjf(^j fJ^9?2//A/f . tStr- H^tTafcf/ne. Fer/t. Mr. J. O. Westwood 07i the Chalcididce. 3 verts are broad and rounded, the third and fourth quills are longest, and from the third to the ninth inclusive the inner webs are marked with a large irregular white spot, the outer webs of the fifth to the eighth inclu- sive are also marked with a square white patch opposite to that on the inner. The tail is much graduated, and the two exterior feathers have an oval white spot near the extremity of each. The legs and feet are black, and formed as in Promerops. Dr. Smith observes that the species is of rare occurrence, he having met with it only three times. All the specimens were procured at the most northern boundary of the colony, and it is probable that they may be found in more abundance when his researches are continued in that direction. On the Plate, Fig. 1. represents the bill seen from above with the incum- bent scales in the proper place. Fig. 2. one of the scales removed. Fig. 3. left foot seen from above. Fig. 4. hallux. Fig. 5. bill of the natural size, showing the scale removed and the true membrane covering the nostrils. Art. II. On the Chalcididce. By J. O. Westwood, Esq,, F.L.S., &c. No. 1. Rules for Entomological Nomenclature. No. 2. AppHcation thereof to the Chalcididae and C5Tiipid8e. No. 3. Characters, &c., of the genera CleonymusLatr. and Cheiro- pachus mihi belonging to the former family. No. 1. " II ne s'agit ici que de la seule Nomenclature." Spinola. There is no portion of the entomological productions of Great Britain which has been so completely disregarded by British Entomologists as the insects composing the family Chalcididae; and when we have mentioned Latreille, Spinola and Dalman among the continental Entomo- b2 4 Mr. J. O. Westwood on the Chalcididce. lo^sts, the catalogue of authors who have attempted their investigation is complete; while at the same time there is hardly any group which can vie with them, either in the singularity of their economy, the peculiarity of their characters, or the brilliancy of their colouring. Previously, however, to entaring upon the history of the nomenclature of the family, I think it necessary to make a few preliminary remarks upon certain principles of Entomological Nomenclature ; and, with Spinola, in the first place to declare, that " quant a la Nomenclature, la priorite est ma loi." It is well known that Linnseus, Fabricius, and their contemporaries often comprised in their extensive genera insects so different in structure, that certain of them are ascertained, their characters being now more minutely investigated, to belong even to other groups. On the other hand it happened far more frequently that the greater part of the insects composing these genera were, from the great, and indeed surprising degree of discrimination possessed by the before-named authors, so nearly allied to each other in affinity, that the modern Entomologist has only to reject the few disagreeing species, to form the oldest generic name* employed in the group into that of a family, by transforming the termina- tion of the last syllable of the genitive case of the generic name into the patronymic idee ; and to reduce the species into minor divisions and sub- divisions, which we now term genera or sub-genera; the ancient generic * Mr. Stephens, in his Illustrations (Haustellata, I. p. 74, note,) observes, " that the name of the family should unquestionably be derived from that of the typical group;" and adds, that from his limited knowledge of exotic forms he should not attempt to decide whether the name which he had employed, or that which had been employed by a contemporary author for the same family, ought to be retained. No further proof of the practical inconvenience of this plan, although it may perhaps be theoretically correct, can be required. Indeed, until the contents of any particular family are clearly ascertained, the supposed typical group, (or, in other words, that group which, from its situation in the family, possesses the characters of the adjacent families in a slighter state of develope- ment than any of the other groups in the same family,) will be continually subject to variation as new forms are discovered, and hence, if Mr. Stephens's rule should be adopted, the family name will necessarily be subject to similar variation. This inconvenience, however, may be at once obviated by adopting the rule which I have stated alwve. Rules for Entomological Nomenclature. 6 name being generically reserved for that particular species, which, from being placed at the head of his genus, we are led to suppose was con- sidered by its founder as the species more especially possessing the generic characters of the group ;* indeed, in the works of Fabricius we invariably find a certain species selected, from which the characters are drawn, and in this case we are left without doubt as to the type of the genus. This is, however, a circumstance too often overlooked by modern authors. At the period above referred to, it also not unfrequently occurred (as we shall see below) that an author, unacquainted with the works of his contem- poraries, gave to some particular group, incorrectly supposed by him to be unnamed and uncharacterized, a generic name, in many instances derived from some peculiarity in the insect which he considered as the type, (add- ing at the same time to his genus other, and perhaps very distinct insects, rather than form them into new genera,) when, however, unfortunately for him, those very insects which he had regarded as the types of his new genus, had previously received from some other Entomologist a different generic name. Now in such a case it is quite clear that the second name must sink into a synonym. It has, indeed, been said that it ought to be retained, and that the insects placed by the author of the second generic name at the end of his genus, although completely disagree- ing with the characters of the type, (from which type perhaps the second generic name was derived,) ought to be considered as entitled to such second generic name. This doctrine, however, in such cases is certainly not maintainablef , not even though the insects placed at the end of the genus by the second author may partially agree with his typical species* * Fabricius, in his Philosophia Entomologica (p. 114) lays down the follow- ing rule, " Si genus receptunx secundum leges naturae et artis, in plura diri- matur, turn nomen antea commune vulgatissimo insecto manebit." I do not know any method so likely to create confusion and uncertainty as that contained in the above rule, since it is next to impossible that every Entomologist would select the same particular insect, and consider it as the most common in the family to which it belongs. Indeed Fabricius himself seems to have wished to inculcate this uncertainty, since, in p. 118 of the same book, he observes, "Locus et tempus insecti sunt maxime accidentalia." t " Nomen genericum unius generis, nisi supervacanetim, in aliud transferrl baud debet." Fab., Phil. Ent. p. 113. t> Mr. J. O. West wood on the Chalcididce. Confusion has hitherto constantly attended, and cannot but attend, the employment of such synonymous names, which the introduction of new generic names would certainly have prevented. " Nominum genericorum enim mutatio semper ansam confusionis prsebet." * * Fab., Phil. Ent. p. 105. The genus Eulophus will afford an example of the application of the above rule in a somewhat different manner. That genus was proposed by Geoffroy for a species, the male of which pos- sessed branched antennae. Latreille extended the genus, comprising in it all the species in the family whose antennae were apparently six or seven jointed. Dalman adopted Latreille's views, but proposed that the generic name should be changed to Entedon, placing however in his arrangement of the species (which were formed into various sections and subsections) the species with the branched antennae in the males in the first section at the head of his genus, thus con- sidering them to possess the characters of the group in a greater state of developement than the other species, all of which have simple antennae. But to the student of this portion of our Entomological productions it is evident that the group as extended by Latreille and Dalman is of higher than generic rank, forming in fact a subfamily, which may be named, after Mr. Vigors's plan, Eulophina, and that the generic name of Eulophus ought to be re- stricted to the species with branched antennae in the males for which it was first proposed ; and since Dalman has placed these species at the head of his genus, we may be permitted to say that his name Entedon is only synonymous with the true genus Eulophus, even without reference to the claims of the latter name on account of its priority, and consequently that the name Ente- don ought not to be employed generically to designate any one of the other divisions or subdivisions comprised in Dalman's group, which are of equal rank with the true Eulophi ; and for which (as it will be necessary to give them names) it would be far preferable that new generic terms should be employed. In the Coleoptera how many genera do we see proposed and adopted, whose characters are far less decided than those which characterize Dalman's sections and subsections! and shall 'the objects comprised therein, merely because they are minute, be denied the advantages (as I may almost call them) which their relatives of larger size enjoy? But supposing that the name of Eulophus were to be generically employed for the true Eulophi, and the name of Entedon were not to be considered as a synonym, but were to be employed generically for the insects contained in any one of the said subdivisions of Entedon, I would ask how the Entomologist could say that he is describing the genus Entedon of Dalman, when that genus Rules for Eiitomological Nomenclature, 7 In this investigation, however, I also think it equally clear that we ought to be allowed to consider the Systema Naturse as our boundary mark, without being required to trace the name of an insect through all the old and fabulous authors who have treated upon it, and who have at the same time introduced so much confusion amongst the names by which the more commonly known insects were designated, that it is now almost impossible (although in itself a sufficiently interesting subject for investigation) to discover the insects alluded to by those authors. Linnseus, on the other hand, " primus scientiam in formam systematis redegit, genera condidit, characteres nominaque eorumdedit;*" a system fixed and harmonious throughout, and sufficient in itself to carry his name down to the latest posterity, and as such, the names employed by him are now, notwith- standing the admitted impropriety of a very few of them, almost univer- sally adopted. I therefore think that it would at once tend to overthrow so valuable a system were we unnecessarily to set aside his names, preferring to them others, which, even were they adopted, would lead to no satisfactory results. There is also another question (too often overlooked) which, although not immediately connected Avith the present subject, I may be allowed to mention. I allude to priority in regard to the Nomenclature of Species. Now the purpose for which specific names are bestowed upon insects is comprised so many of such subdivisions ? or to which of his other subdivisions ought his name Entedon par preference to be exclusively given ? It may however be said that the whole group having apparently six or seven joints in the antennae is but of the rank of a genus, then in such case Dalman's name must inevitably sink into a synonym of Eulophus, since Latreille pre- viously extended the latter generic name over the whole group, and that name would be then employed; first, as a generic one as proposed by Latreille for for the whole group ; and second, as a subgeneric one as proposed by GeofFroy for the true Eulophi, perhaps forming the name in the latter case, after Mr. Kirby's plan, into the subgeneric name Eulophse; Dalman's other sections and subsections having new subgeneric names given to them similarly terminating ; but for my own part, as between these two plans, which in the end may be said at most to possess a variance but no difference, I certainly at present feel in- clined to prefer the former. In any case the adoption, of Dalman's name Entedon will be attended with confusion. : . ,. * Fab., Phil. Ent. p. 88. S Mr. J. O. Westvvood on the Chakididce. perfectly artificial; namely, that by such means an insect may be readily recognized amongst its fellows, " Demtis nominibus rite determinatis aliis ideas nostras nuUo modo communicare valemus,"* and the aim of the Entomologist is fully accomplished if he is enabled thereby to make himself understood when mentioning or describing any particular insect; consequently a slight degree of importance is all that is requisite to be attached to the names themselves. It has however been said, that if an insect receive a name which is afterwards discovered to be incorrect, such name ought to be rejected, and that employed by the next author who described the insect adopted in its stead. For instance, if the oldest spe- cific name be derived from a character which is afterwards discovered to be a generic one, (Ex. Leistus spinibarbis, Loricera pilicornis,) or if a comparative name be employed, and the comparison is afterwards de- stroyed, (Ex. Hister maximus, Bombylius major, B. medius, B. minor,) or again, if such name be derived from a sexual character, (Ex. Eucera lon- gicomis, Eulophus ramicornis, Eul. damicomis,) or lastly, if a name be employed indicative of the habitation or place of capture of an insect, and it is afterwards discovered that the supposed habitation was merely acci- dental, or in fact erroneous, (Ex. Curculio AUiarise and C. Lapathi, noticed by Kirby and Spence, Vol. I. p. 196,) or it is discovered that the insect is not confined to the supposed locaHty, (Ex. Agonum Austriacum, Raphidia Londinensis,) I think, for the reasons above mentioned, that in each of these cases it is going too far to contend that such name ought to be rejected, ** Toleranda tamen sunt," says Fabricius, " quamvis baud iraitanda;"t for if the propriety of every specific name were to be thus rigidly examined, we should find but few which would survive the test. J In one of the cases mentioned Messrs. Kirby and Spence are of a * Fab.,ib. p. 101. t Id. ibid. p. 118. J Here may be noticed the useless curtailment of the Linnaean names of the Tineas, which has latterly been adopted by some of our Entomologists. I would ask what advantage is gained thereby ; for would not " Anacampsis cinerea or Juniperi,'' as written by Mr, Curtis, (British Entomology, No. 189,) be more satisfactorily known by the old established Linnaean names " cinerella or Juni- perelia V* " Nomina trivialia nunquam absque summa urgenti necessitate mu- tanda sunt." Fab., ib. p. 121, Nomenclature of the Chalddidce and Cynipidcs, 9 different opinion, (Introduction, Vol. I. p. 196, note,) but De Jean, in his Preface to the first volume of his " Species general des Coleopteres," expresses a strong opinion on the propriety of retaining the oldest specific name, to the exclusion of recent improved ones, giving for examples Loricera pilicornis and Leistus spinibarbis, above noticed. It would not, however, be proper to pass over in silence, or without censure, the con- tradictory opinion previously expressed by that author in the same Pre- face, where he announces his intention of adopting the names most generally used, immaterial whether they have or have not priority of date !, adding, that the investigation of the prior claim to a name is a waste of labour, and ever attended with more trouble than can be com- pensated by the benefit to be derived therefrom. How unworthy is this remark of the work in which it is contained ! There is one case, however, in which the earliest specific name of a particular insect must be rejected in favor of the subsequently employed name, viz. where such earliest trivial name has previously been used by some preceding author, for a different species, in the same genus. No. 2. We now proceed to the history of the nomenclature of the Chal- cididse and Cynipidse. The genus Cynips was proposed by Linnaeus in the 6th edition of the Systema Naturae, and was evidently intended, (although comprising in- sects belonging to other and very different modern genera and even fami- lies,) for the reception of the true Gall Flies, those insects being placed by him at the head of the genus. Most of the minute insects of the parasitic family Chalcididae were, from the similarity in their habits, placed by him amongst his " Ichneumones minuti," as they were also by DeGeer. Geoffroy shortly afterwards, in 1764, established the genus Diplolepis composed entirely of the true Gall FHes or Cynips of Linnaeus, while the genus Cynips, which he also retained, comprised many of the Ichneumones minuti of Linnaeus, having one of them, belonging to the family Chalcididae, for its type, and also comprising several other species belonging to the latter family which Linnaeus had incorrectly placed at ihe end of the Gall Fly genus, Cynips. 10 Mr. J. O. West wood ow tke Chalcididw, In the SjTStema Entomologiae of Fabricius, published in 1775, that author adopts the genus Cynips as proposed by Linnaeus; and unites Chalcis sispes with his Chrysides, and the small Chalcididae either with the Ichneumones, or places them at the end of the genus Cynips. In the Mantissa Insectorum of the same author, published in 1787, the genus Chalcis was first established; but in that work the smaller species of the family Chalcididae were still placed either with Ichneumon or Cynips. In 1795, Swederus established, in the Swedish Transactions, the genus Pteromalus, comprising the greater portion of those " Ichneumones minuti" of Linnaeus, which Geoffroy had miscalled Cynips, and Fabricius had placed either with Ichneumon or Cynips. In 1796, in the " Precis des Caracteres generiques," Latreille en- tirely adopted GeoiFroy's improper nomenclature ; and Mr. Kirby, in his Monographia Apum Anglise, (1. 82. 2.) noticing the arrangement of the Hymenoptera in that work, observes, " 6. Cynips, after Geoffroy : this genus takes in no genuine Cynips, but includes a large proportion of the Ichneumones minuti of Linnaeus, the Eulophus of Geoffroy, and Chalcis of Fabricius; it would be a good genus without Chalcis, but it should have another name, as Cynips ought to be continued to the gall-nut insects," which in Latreille' s work were generically called Diplolepis. Fabricius, however, in the Systema Piezatorum, 1804, not avrare of the establishment of Pteromalus, by Swederus, has, (notwithstanding the pro- priety of his restoring to the Gall Fhes the generic name of Cynips imposed on them by Linnaeus,) introduced considerable confusion by trans- posing Geoffrey's other generic name, calling all those parasitic insects which that author had miscalled Cynips, by the name of Diplolepis, vnth the exception of a few which he placed in his genus Cleptes. This vras a decided failure, since it is clear, that Diplolepis, when properly restricted to the Gall Flies as intended by Geoffroy, is only synonjrmous with the Cynips of Linnaeus, and consequently ought merely to be used as such. Had Fabricius either given a new name to these minute Chalcididae, or placed them in his genus Chalcis, or adopted that of Pteromalus proposed for them by Swederus, instead of calling them Diplolepis, the confusion which has arisen would in a great mea- sure have been avoided. Nomenclature of the Chalcididce and Cynipidce. 11 Latreille, in theHistoire naturelle &c., Genera Crustaceonim &c., and Considerations generates,* still retained the improper nomen- clature of his countryman Geoflfroy, by forming, in the first of these works, the true Gall Flies (under the generic name of Diplolepis) with the addition of the genera Ibalia, Figites and Eucharis, into his family Diploleparise ; and the parasitic Cynipes of Geoifroy, (Ichneu- mones minuti of Linnseus,) under the same erroneous generic name of Cynips, (but divided into different sections and subsections,) with the addition of the genera Leucospis and Chalcis into his family Cynipsera. The family Proctotrupii was separated from the latter family by this author, and has since been preserved distinct, although some of the genera have been more than once removed from one family to the other. In the two latter works no further improvement was made in the family of the Gall Flies, still miscalled by him Diploleparise, and the only remark worthy of observation in the Genera Crustaceorum, is that placed after the genus of Gall Flies, the synonyms of which are thus placed. '^ioiq lu* " Diplolepis i Geoff. Oliv. Cynips, Linn. Scop. De G. Schr. Fabr. Vill. Ross. Bosc. Chr. Cuv. Lam. IlHg. Panz. Jur. Walck. Spinola." !! Surely this host of celebrated names ought to have outweighed Latreille's devoted attachment to the incorrect nomenclature of his countrjnmen; but he adds, in order to prove the correctness of his ideas, this " Nota — ** Nomen genericum" (Diplolepis) " his Insectis" (the Gall FHes) " a " Dom. Geoffroi impositum, et ab amico Olivier retentum, denominationi " Linnseanse antepono ; Cynipedes Dom. Geoffroi nunc a Fabricio ** Diplolepes vocantur ; nominum hoec continua subversio scientiam ocdr- " fZiY."f After stating the alterations which have subsequently been made by this author, we shall be able to ascertain in what degree this " nomi- num subversio continua'* may be laid to his charge. For the parasitic family Chalcididae, the name of Cynipsera was still retained in his Genera Crust, and Consid. generates, and the divisions and subdivisions, which he had formed in the Histoire Naturelle, of Geoflfroy*s * It is almost neeedless to add that the arrangement and nomenclature of this work have been adopted in nearly every instance by Dr. Leach in the Edin- burgh Encyclopaedia, and by Mr. Samouelle in his Compendium. t Genera Crust. &c. Vol. IV. p. 19. 12 Mr. J. O. Westwood on the Chalcidida, 'miscalled parasitic Cynipes were raised to the rank of genera, amongst which was adopted that of Pteromalus of Swederus, restricted, however, to the Pter, Gallarum and its congeners; the name of Cynips being also generically restricted to the splendid species with an elongated and ex- serted ovipositor in the females, (C. Bedeguaris, &c.) In the Insecta Ligurige, Spinola has entirely adopted the nomenclature of Fabricius, dividing, however, the parasitic Diplolepes of that author into divers sections and subsections; but in the 17th volume of the ** Annales du Museum," in his " Essai d'une nouvelle Classification des Diplolepaires," after stating the priority of the establishment by Linnaeus of the genus Cynips, the erroneous nomenclature of Geoffroy, the correct reference by Fabricius of the Gall Flies to the generic name of Cynips, and his conviction that Fabricius ought to have given a new name to the parasitic insects which he had miscalled Diplolepis, as above mentioned, he adds, that he himself would not attempt the innovation, but suggested that the parasitic family named by him Diploleparise (answering to the Cynipsera of Latreille) might with propriety be altered to Chalcidites, more especially as Jurine had placed all the insects of the family in the genus Chalcis, and had restricted the genus Cynips to the true Gall Flies. In the same paper Spinola also suggested that the generic name Cynips, as above restricted by Latreille in the Genera Crustaceorum &c., ought con- sequently to be set aside, proposing in its stead that of Callimone, In the Swedish Transactions for 1820, Dalman, who does not appear to have been acquainted with the above Essai by Spinola, or the alterations adopted by Latreille in the Regne Animal stated below, has published an excellent paper on the Chalcididae, to which (following his country- man Swederus) he gives the family name of Pteromalini; but as Fabricius had proposed the genus Chalcis previously to the proposal of Pteromalus by Swederus, the family name ought to be founded upon the former generic name, more especially since the true Chalcides appear to be the typical species of the family. In this paper, the species having females with an elongated exserted ovipositor (Cynips of Latreille, Gen. Crust., Callimone of Spinola) are formed into the genus Torymus; Latreille himself, how- ever, convinced of the impropriety of terming them Cynips, had previ- ously, in the Nouv. Diet d'Hist. Nat., given them the new name of Misocampus, but both these names must fall, since they are subsequent Nomenclature of the Chalcididce and Cynipid