A CRITICAL EXAMINATIOX OF DR. VERITY's PAPER. 29 



A Critical Examination of Dr. Verity's Paper on the "Types" of 

 Palaearctic Rhopalocera in the Linnean Collection. 



By Kev. GEORGE WHEELER, M.A., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 

 Owing to the continuous and constantly increasing pressure of 

 other work, I have been unable hitherto to find time for the critical 

 examination of Dr. Verity's paper on the Linnean "types" of Pabe- 

 arctic Rhopalocera which I undertook some time ago (vol. xxv., p. 233) 

 to make, and meanwhile the ground has been somewhat cleared, not 

 only by Dr. Jordan's note appended to Dr. Verity's paper, to which I 

 then referred, but also by Mr. Bethune-Daker's criticisms published in 

 this magazine (vol. xxv., pp. 251, 272), which made clear the very 

 important point that no such thing as a " type," in the scientific sense 

 of the word, exists at all in the Linnean collection. For, since the 

 idea of a type specimen had never been propounded in Linneus' time, 

 it is obvious that he could never have designated any particular speci- 

 men or specimens as such, and in order that any of his extant speci- 

 mens should now be accepted as "types" it would be necessary to 

 prove the following pomts : — 



(1) That the original description was drawn up by Linneus from 



his own specimens. 



(2) That the Linnean specimens now extant were in his possession 



at the time when the original descriptions were made. 



(3) That they were the only specimens in his possession at the 



time. 



Now, though these points are in some instances capable of being 

 disproved, there is no instance in which it is possible to prove them, 

 and therefore any of the changes proposed by Dr. Verity in the usually 

 received nomenclature which depend on the assumption that any 

 "types," in the sense in which tiie word is used in matters afl'ecting 

 nomenclature, exist in the Linnean collection, can simply be brushed 

 aside, on the ground that the foundation on which the arguments are 

 built is unsound, and the conclusions consequently impossible of 

 acceptance. Another fact of which Dr. Verity has apparently lost 

 sight is, that, from the point of view of nomenclature, the only thing 

 which is of the slightest importance is what Linneus actually pub- 

 lished, and that neither his MS. notes, nor the suppositions of any 

 subsequent writer (whether in 1813 or 1913 is immaterial) as to what 

 he may or may not have meant, can be regarded as anything more 

 than an interesting contribution to a purely academic discussion. 



It would be almost impossible to exaggerate the interest and 

 importance of Dr. Verity's paper, regarded as a painstaking, and 

 probably very accurate, catalogue of the actual Linnean speciinens now 

 in the "Linnean " collection, but it has little practical bearing on the" 

 subject of nomenclature, since the possibility, or even the probability, 

 that some of his ingenious surmises are correct (though others can be 

 proved to be erroneous) cannot possibly be accepted as proof, and 

 nothing short of this could justify (even to the most rigorous devotee 

 of priority) the drastic changes which he proposes. 



Speaking only for myself, I should, of course, decline to recognise 

 any changes in names so long established, even if the proof w.ere over- 

 whelming, unless, or until, the suggestions I put bjgfote'the lastlnter- 



February 15th, 1914. /^ 



FEB 28 



