302 >ioVITATES ZOOLOGICAE XXI. 1914. 



The secoud error is much more serions, for every zoologist who describes or 

 writes on systematic zoology ought to know that, if a name has been used by a 

 previous author, even if it is impossible to make out what species is meant, it can 

 never again be used. But, as in this case a little careful thougiit would have 

 made Linnaeus' species quite easily recognisable, I maintain the ii]>plication of 

 the name belia Cramer was doubly indefensible. That author himself only quoted 

 Linnaeus' name, figuring, as he supposed, the ? of the Linnaean species. 



Having thus, as I trnst, once for all explained why the orange and yellow 

 species of Eucfdoii from North Africa must be called belia Linn., I will proceed 

 to do my best to unravel the nomenclature of the white species, though I will 

 say at once that I do not wish to assert that I have got all the forms correctly 

 assigned and named. The American races and the Transcaspian and other Asiatic 

 forms do not come into question as regards the nomenclature generally and 

 the synonymy of the Algerian forms in particular, so I shall not mention 

 them here. 



As we have seen above, the name belia cannot api)ly tci our present species, 

 and we find that the ne.xt names applied to a form of this species are ausonia of 

 Hiibner in 1803 ami marckandae Hiibner in 1827 or 18i.!8. Here again we find 

 these names wrongly applied by almost all subsequent writers, and Butler in 1869 

 was the first to point out that both ausoiiia Htiliuer and marcliamlae Hiibner refer 

 to tlie high mountain race with a single geueration which goes usually under 

 Freyer's name of sinplonia (1829). Therefore we have to take as the real name- 

 type of the species the Alpine single-brooded subspecies, aud it stands as Euchloe 

 ausonia ausonia Hiibii. 



Having got so far, we are now faced with the great difficulty of first deciding 

 whether the Spanish, French, and Algerian forms are all one subspecies or not, and 

 then in either case what the correct name is of each form. Ribbe had already separated 

 the Spanish race as distinct, and Verity separated the West Pyrenean form from 

 the ordinary Alpine race, so there remain the French form and the Algerian 

 ones. As far as my series will permit me to judge, and it numbers at least three 

 times if not four times as many as Oberthiir had in 1909 when he named the 

 various races of iaffis and of the present species — for of the ausonia and tagis 

 groups from west of the Caucasus to Spain, etc., I have at present before me some 

 three thousand specimens and have access to those in the British Museum, though 

 the series there is not good — the Algerian forms will have to be treated separately 

 from the French. 



In 1869 Butler, as mentioned above, proved what the true ausonia was, 

 and then proceeded to describe as a new species a form of which he took as his 

 type a specimen purchased by the British Museum from Herr Becker, which 

 was labelled " South Europe." Becker's localities are not as a rule reliable, or, as in 

 this case, they are much too general. Having after a great deal of difficulty found 

 and examined Butler's type of his Euchloe crameri, I find it to be undoubtedly 

 the Spanish form, as it agrees absolutely with a sjiecimen taken in Andalusia. 

 Why Butler put down Cramer's belia which came from Syria as a synonym of 

 his crameri, when he usually split up forms much less distinct, I am at a loss 

 to conceive. 



The summer brood of the race found in the south of France, etc., has received 

 the name Euckloii ausonia Var. a, Euckloii esperi Kirby, who took as his t_ype 

 of this form Esper's drawing on his plate 94, fig. 1. The spring brood has no 



