114 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



^ ^ ^ ^ M H^B^M— 111 II __  



that the higher divisions stand in a relative position to the " species." 

 They are, in fact, extensions of the same idea. All are alike artificial in 

 theory, and all classiflcatory terms are matters of practical necessity and 

 convenience. As well might Mr. Moschler ask to what species do hybrids 

 belong ? Hybrids between distinct genera are noted elsewhere among 

 animals. Collett has recently shown that the abnormal passion of the 

 male ptarmigan in Norway leads to the production of hybrids between 

 Tetrao tetrix and Lagopus albus. In fact this " abnormal passion " may 

 be one of the means for the production of new species. Dr. Hagen * 

 thinks that Samia Columbia may be a hybrid between Callosamia promethea 

 and Samia cccropia, species in my opinion strongly structurally and 

 generically different. And Dr. Hagen further shows that interbreeding 

 might be facilitated owing to the abundance of parasites which might 

 check the due proportion of the sexes in either species. Perhaps, indeed, 

 it may be rather owing to " abnormal passion," while the infested hybrid 

 caterpillars might be additionally attractive to hymenopterous parasites. 

 I am not favorably inclined to any k ' uniformity ' in entomological 

 nomenclature which will fall short in any way from a possible nearer 

 expression of the facts in the case. The massing together in large genera 

 of species offering structural peculiarities prevents our appreciation of 

 these peculiarities, which is the point aimed at by systematic nomenclature. 

 For instance, I cannot see why Mr. Riley, in bis excellent article on the 

 Hackberry Butterrlies,t opposes the adoption of a different genus for our 

 species, when he interestingly shows on the very first page that the allied 

 European Apatura has a peculiar form, shape and arrangement of the wing 

 scales. 



Nor am I agreed that in proposing a generic name an author is obliged to 

 construct a perfect diagnosis. The species being known to science, and 

 all generic diagnoses being merely of comparative excellence, it cannot 

 be expected that without a " uniformity " in comprehension there should 

 be a " uniformity ' in expression. Of course much depends on these 

 points. Why a " uniformity " in generic designation should be so strongly 

 urged when we see no "uniformity" in anything else relating to our 

 mental development in the wide world, is difficult of comprehension. To 

 me it seems that more exactness of definition is obtained by recognizing 



* Bui. Buff. Soc. N. Sci., 2, 204. 



f Trans. Acad. Sci., St. Louis, 1875, p. 193 et seg. 



