QQ THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



side is of decidedly lighter tone, which is in accordance with the original 

 description of ci'tima (Papilio I, 53), and with the type specimens in the 

 Henry Edwards collection, with which I am familiar. 



My observations of this insect lead me to believe that in the south 

 (New Mexico and Arizona) type chrysalus is found predominant with the 

 rich orange markings, while in the north (Utah), whence I have a good 

 series of specimens, the orange markings are aborted and in many speci- 

 mens entirely wanting. I think the form designated as citima as worthy of 

 a varietal name as many other colour varieties of the butterflies. 



In the Colorado specimens it is, moreover, not unusual to find the 

 black patch midway of the wing on the costa entirely wanting, and also 

 the black scales along the costa reduced to a very fine band, thus leaving 

 the entire disc of the primaries purple. Another interesting variation is a 

 tendency in some female specimens to have yellow spots replacing the 

 orange found in the type chrysalus. 



"A DECISION ON MEIGEN'S 1800 PAPER." 



BY D. W. C0QUIL;.ETT, WASHINGTON, D. C 



In concluding the article under the above heading, which appeared in 

 the January number of the Canadian Entomologist, the statement is 

 made that "the Commission did not only not decide against my conten- 

 tion," (/. ^., that the Meigen names of 1800 are iiomina nuda), "but that 

 the Secretary expressly says that the essential feature of the case does not 

 lie within the jurisdiction of the Commission." 



This is an extraordinary deduction, in view of the fact that in the 

 portion of the decision quoted it is stated that "the Commission is of the 

 opinion that the generic names in Meigen's Nouvelle Classification, 1800, 

 must take precedence over those in hisVersuch, 1803, in every case where 

 the former are valid under the International Code." 



Thus the names of 1800 are placed on the same footing as those of 

 1803, otherwise they could not take precedence over the latter. The status 

 of the names of 1803 has never been questioned. 



It must be borne in mind that the Commission" applies the term valid 

 only to the oldest available names of the various genera, not to synonyms 

 or homonyms. In view of this fact, the statement of Dr. Stiles, that the 

 question of the validity of the names rests with the specialist, becomes 

 perfectly plain. None but a specialist could unravel the synonymy in a 

 given group. 



February, 1911 



