190
REPORT ON ZOOLOGY, MDCCCXLIII.
Monographie d’un genre de Muscides, nomme Ceratitis , par M. Guerin-Meneville, (Rev. Zool. p. 194.) The author distinguishes 5 species : (1)C. Catoirei ( C. citriperda, M., Leay, Zool, Joum.) from the Mauritius ; (2) C.capitata {Tryp. cap., Wied.), from Madeira; (3) C. Mspanica, Breme; (4)C. Bremei, n. s. from Senegal ; (5) C. ? deniipes, n. s. from New Holland.The last is particularly distinguished by peculiar prominences on thehead of the $ winch have nothing in common with those of theother species, and it might, perhaps, form a distinct genus, for which theauthor holds in readiness the name of Lenophila. The fourth species isunknown to me. With respect to the first three I refer to my publishedopinion in the last Report p. 263, (255 of Transl.)
The genus Milichia, Meig., has been submitted by Loew (Ent. Zeit., p.310, 322) to a rigorous examination, and he has added to it a new species,found near Posen, M. formosa.
Pupipara. —Denny (Annals of Nat. Hist, xii, p. 314, pi. 17, f. 5) hasdescribed a new species found upon Pteropus edulis: Lipoptena Pteropi.
Aphaniptera . —Id. (ib. p. 315, f. 6) has given a description and figure ofthe Elea of the Echidna histrix, from "V an Diemen’s Land : Pulex Echidna.
A collection of all the hitherto observed species and established generaof this family has been made by Gervais. (Hist. Nat. d. Ins. Apteres, iii,p. 362.)
A new and very useful manual of this order is the ‘ Histoire Na-turelle des Insectes Hemipteres,’ par MM. Amyot et Audinet-Serville ,Paris, 1843, forming part of the ‘ Suites a Bulfon,’ published by Roret.The authors have set out with the fundamental proposition, “ qu’ungenre n’est pas autre chose qu’une division methodique venant imme-diatement au-dessus du dernier degre de division, qui est l’espece, commel’espece est elle-meme immediatement au-dessus de la variete.” In con-formity with this view, where merely some subdivisions have been indicatedby their predecessors, the authors have erected these’ subdivisions intogenera, the number of which has consequently become very considerable.Many of these genera are good and will remain, others will be again reducedto the rank of mere subdivisions from which the authors have raised them,by more profound systematists, to whose idea of a genus greater significanceattaches. On the score of utility, the authors’ method is undoubtedly the moreconvenient, since by the too frequent disjunctions, caused by repeated sub-division, all connexion in the classification is destroyed. As this work willnot fail to be in the hands of those Entomologists who occupy themselveswith this order, a further introduction to its contents is superfluous.