A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF DR. VERTTy's PAPER. 31 



of no value for naiiief<, since they were not then given, they are some- 

 times of value in determining the " nimotypical " race. In this case, 

 however, the description in Fn. Snec. would again serve for any iiajd, 

 and reference is also made to figures not of the Scandinavian form, so 

 that the question is again left open so far as Linneus is concerned, but 

 was settled by Ochsenheimer when he separated oft" biyo)iiae in 1828. 

 With regard to the specific identity of these forms, the question has 

 surely been settled by the breeding experiments of Messrs. Harrison 

 and Main, with which Dr. Verity is apparently unacquainted. 



llapae and Jirassicae. — the same line of argument applies exactly to 

 these cases. It may however be observed that Dr. Verity is not quite 

 correct in identifying nietra, Stphns., with 'uinnandata, Fol., the latter 

 being an extreme case of the former. 



Bella. — In this case Dr. Verity's conclusion is undoubtedly correct, 

 simply on the ground of the original description. I cannot however 

 follow him in thinl\ing that this might cijualh/ well apply to eiipJienoidi's, 

 " lituris aliquot transversis griseis " seeming to me to stamp it as 

 referring to eiijilieno. " Habitat in Barbaria," especially with the addi- 

 tion " Brander," quite settles the matter, but were farther confirmation 

 wanting, the two Linnean specimens might in such a case, taken in 

 conjunction with the absence of &ny enplwnnidot or oiiijihale,hQ regarded 

 as rorrobnratirt' evidence, since the original description dates from 

 1767. Dr. Verity's argument against the latter species seems to me 

 incontrovertible. 



I cannot, as I observed above, accept the change at present, but 

 should of necessity do so if my suggestions are rejected by the Inter- 

 national Committee on Nomenclature, as well as the consequent change 

 from belia, L., to craiiieri, Butl. 



Sinajtis. — Dr. Verity seems (perhaps onhj seems) to imply that 

 lat/ii/ri, Hb., is the usual spring form of this species. It may be so in 

 Tuscany, but is certainly not so in most localities. During the eleven 

 seasons I resided in Switzerland there were two in which this form 

 was dominant, indeed almost universal, in the spring brood, but during 

 the other nine I do not think that a single specimen of the latlnjrl 

 form was to be obtained. 



Iihaiiini. — This species was defined in 1758 with reference to various 

 figures not of the specially Scandinavian form, and there is, I think, 

 no room for the name tranxiens, Ver. 



( 'It'opatia. — ^Dr. Verity is undoubtedly correct in making the African 

 form " nimotypical." " Habitat in Barbaria " decides the matter. 



Jasius. — This species is remarkable as being the only one, with 

 the exception of niaera, in which I have detected Dr. Verity in being 

 incorrect as to his facts. He has taken it for granted that the species 

 we know as jasius, L., and v.iiich is described as Jason in Sys. Nat., 

 xiith ed., p. 7-49, no, 26, is the same species as that previously 

 described in the xth ed., p. 485, no. 171, and in Mas. Liid. lir., p. 210, 

 no. 29, and consequently says that "Habitat in Indiis " is "obviously 

 erroneous," whereas in point of fact there is no connection between 

 them. The species described as jason in the xth ed. and in the Miis. Linl. 

 I'lr. is described, also as Jason, in the xiith ed., p. 752, no. 38, so that 

 Linneus has inadvertently (unless it were a printer's error which he 

 had overlooked) described two quite unconnected insects as Jason, a 

 mistake which he rectified among the errata on the last page of the 



