In the course of compiling a bibliography of F. Förster's papers for eventual publication, and in checking a manuscript by Tridib R. Mitra, l became aware that (Gomphus cognatus Rambur. designated as the type species by J. COWLEY (1934. Entomologist 67: 200-205) when proposing Paragomphus as a new name for Mesogomphus F. FÖRSTER (1906, Jb. nassau. Ver. Naturk. 59: 299-344), was not selected in accordance with the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. As recorded by F.E. SCHULZE et al. (1932, Nomenclator animalium generum et subgenerum, Bd.3, p. 2044. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin) and by S.A. NEAVE (1940, Nomenclator zoologicus. Vol.3, p.l 16, Zool. Soc. Lond.), and pointed out by COWLEY (1934), the name Mesogomphus was first proposed by J.W. DAVIS in 1883 (Trans. R. Dublin Soc., II, I: 470) for a genus in Pisces; and in October 1906 the same name was given to two more new genera, one by A. HANDLIRSCH (1906, Die fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der rezenten Formen. Bd.3, pp. 579-600, Engelmann, Leipzig) for two fossil species of Gomphidae, and the other by F. FÕRSTER (cf. above) for two new species, also in the gomphidae. F. RIS (1921, Ann. sth Afr. Mus. 18: 343), who was aware of duplicity in Insecta, ”thought it advisable to adopt the name as given for the living group”, but did not propose a new name for the fossil genus. H. CAMPION (1923, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 12: 669) replaced Mesogomphus Handlirsch with Necrogomphus n. nov., and this was later change to Necygomphus n. nov. by H. COWLEY (1942, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 11: 75).