144 The Ottawa Naturalist. [Nov. 



DISCOURSES UPON THE LEPIDOPTERA. 

 II. FAMILIARITY WITH LOCAL FORMS. 



By F. H. Wolly-Dod, Millarville, Alta. 



Errors in naming, omitting such as are the result of care- 

 lessness, are principally due, as the late Dr. Johnson would 

 bluntly have expressed it, to "sheer ignorance." To put it 

 more mildly and explicitly, they are the result of unfamiUarity 

 with species. 



On the North American continent, very few species of 

 lepidoptera have ever been carefully bred from known parents. 

 Consequently, reliance has had to be made for separation of 

 species upon close observation of the insects in the perfect or 

 winged state, the imagines, that being the correct plural of the 

 word imago. It goes without saying that considerable experience 

 is absolutely necessary before deductions of any value can be 

 drawn from appearances. A good foundation of experience is 

 having bred sundry very variable species from the egg, and 

 observed first hand the possibilities and limits of variation in 

 different genera. For not only different species, but, in a general 

 sense, different genera also, vary in dift'erent ways. For instance, 

 quite a distinct phase of variation may be expected in a 

 Mamestra, from that prevailing in a Cucullia; and an Euxoa is 

 apt to varv to an infinitely greater degree than say , an Acronycta. 

 Next in value of experience gained by breeding, is a study of 

 long series of known variable species from known localities. 



Now, the value of deductions drawn from such a source, 

 depends, of course, very largely upon the conception, or "eye" 

 of the person making the observations. For even with the same 

 amount of experience and material for deductions, some people 

 are known to possess a much better eye for associations than 

 others. It is not a question of keenness of vision, but a fact that 

 some are better able to take in and make due allowances for 

 the general impression conveyed from colour, etc., without being 

 misled by resemblances. The idea is perhaps poorly expressed, 

 but it is undeniable that though "an eye for a species" can be 

 cultivated, it cannot be acquired where it does not naturally 

 exist. The late Mr. A. R. Grote, when it is considered what scant 

 material he had from which to make deductions on North 

 American forms, must be admitted to have had an excellent 

 eye for a species. The same cannot, unfortunately, be said of 

 Mr. Francis Walker, curator of the British Museum of Natural 

 History in the fifties and sixties. Nor can the two men be com- 

 pared in the amount of care they took in comparison. 



But to return to the basis for deductions. Observations of 



