30 THE entomologist's record. 



national Congress of Entomology had been definitely rejected by the 

 International Committee ; but happily there is only one case, that of 

 India, to which this position will apply ; in all other cases the proposed 

 changes in specific (though not always in varietal) names must be 

 rejected on grounds universally admitted. 



With regard to the " nimotypical " races, the specimens in the col- 

 lection again afford no proof on the matter, though, had they been 

 labelled with their localities, they would have been of the utmost 

 importance in this respect, but they do in certain cases supply indica- 

 tions which cannot be altogether neglected. Whenever in the original 

 description a single habitat is given, it follows necessarily that the race 

 inhabiting that locality is the "nimotypical" one (though why the 

 simple word typical is not sufficient for every purpose passes my com- 

 prehension), and an indication may in some cases be given by the 

 Linnean specimens as to the probable form of this race, but even so 

 they cannot, in the absence of locality labels, be taken as proriivi any- 

 thing. In all species originally described in the Fauna Siiecica, whether 

 in the first or second edition, the Swedish form, whatever it may be, 

 might be regarded as certainly the typical, were it not that reference is 

 frequently made in the descriptions to figures not representing this 

 form, which leaves the question somewhat open. It might be super- 

 ficially argued that the "types" of those species which were first 

 described m the Mimeinii Ludocicae Uliicae are to be found in the 

 Queen's collection in the Upsala University, bat a moment's thought 

 will show that there is no possible proof of this, since we have no 

 proof that the specimens now extant there are the same from which 

 the original de:ficriptions were made. 



As Dr. Verity has pointed out, Linneus noted in MS. in his own 

 copy of the xiith ed. of the Si/iitciiia Naturae the species he then pos- 

 sessed, but, as Mr. Bethune-Baker has pertinently observed, this could 

 not possibly have any bearing on species described before 1767; and 

 even in the case of those described in that year we cannot loioir that 

 they were described from the specimens now extant; indeed a com- 

 parison of the insects and the descriptions would lead to the presump- 

 tion that in some cases they were not. 



I will now take the species in which Dr. Verity proposes changes 

 (and a few others) in detail. 



Podaliriits. — This has been remarked on by Dr. Jordan, and has 

 also been so completely dealt with by Mr. Bethune-Baker (vol. xxv., 

 pp. 251, 272), that it is only necessary to refer to his observations to 

 show that there is no ground w-hatever for the changes proposed from 

 /xxlaliriiis to Ki)w)i and from lotteri to podalirius. Consequently the 

 Africo- Spanish species (if it really is a separate species, which I cannot 

 "regard as being yet fully established) must still be called feisthamdii, 

 Dup., this name having a precedence of no less than 57 years over the 

 varietal name lotteri, Aust. 



Mnei)ioi>i/ne. — Since in his original description Linneus onh' gives 

 Finland as the habitat, it is not only " plausible," but essential, to 

 regard the Scandinavian as the " nimotypical " race. 



Napi. — This species has also been dealt with by Mr. Bethune- 

 Baker {Inc. eit.), but he has apparently overlooked the fact that the 

 original description is not that in Si/s. Nat., xth ed., but that in the 

 1st ed. of the Fn. Suec; and though the descriptions in that work are 



