CICINDELID.E 3 



face simply forming a reticulation; it is very unlikely therefore 

 that a form having pronounced iridescence should be system- 

 atically subordinate to a form having no iridescence, and 

 the assignment of such subordinate rank is consequently an 

 error in most cases. This sometimes occurs, however, as shown by 

 Mequignon in treating the so-called subordinate forms of cristatus 

 (Ann. Soc. Ent. Fr., 1914, p. 79) and, although unknown to me in 

 actuality, there is no doubt in my mind that cantabricus Schauf., 

 and pyrenceus Chd., are distinct species, not only as between them- 

 selves, but in regard to typical cristatus, and also that phceopus, 

 Chd., is a distinct species and not a subspecies. 



Another case in point, and I have chosen these illustrations 

 merely because of convenient reference, let us view Plate i, Bull. 

 Ent. Soc. Fr., 1915. The figures on this plate are drawn carefully 

 by a disinterested artist and no doubt constitute a faithful portrayal 

 of the facts; according to various authors they represent a species, 

 trisignata, fig. i, and a variety of that species known as subsuturalis, 

 figs. 2 to 4. Mr. Clermont tells us that fig. 2 is an intermediate 

 between fig. 4, the least marked form, and fig. i, the true trisignata. 

 So far as I am able to perceive there is no connection whatever 

 between the form represented by figs. 2 to 4, which are mutually 

 perfectly similar, excepting a slight and direct increase or decrease 

 of the markings, and that represented by fig. i. Fig. 2 is in no way 

 intermediate between fig. 4 and fig. I, and in fact I am utterly 

 unable to trace the chief features of fig. i in fig. 2, even allowing 

 for every degree of gradually retracted or undeveloped markings. 

 In short it is demonstrated from these figures that there are two 

 perfectly distinct species involved, trisignata and subsuturalis, for, 

 although fig. i represents the female and figs. 2 to 4 the male, I 

 know of no instance in Cicindela where male and female markings 

 differ systematically to any manifest extent. If species are to be 

 estimated by such indefinable criteria as this, one can scarcely 

 wonder at the many subordinate categories which are found nec- 

 essary to express distinct taxonomic entities, or that the binomial 

 nomenclature of Linne should thereby stand in such real danger 

 of annihilation. There is no valid reason whatever, or known 

 evidence, for not considering subsuturalis to be a species, and there 

 is nothing whatever gained by the hypothetical assumption that 



