32 THK, entomologist's record. 



xiith ed., in the words "pro./'a.soH lese Jasiiis," the former name being 

 of course preoccupied, since the Indian species was first described in 

 1758 and ouv jasiua in 1767. Even a superficial reading of the descrip- 

 tion of the Indian jaxon should have shown it to be quite unconnected 

 with jaftiioi. Dr. Verity is however perfectly right in taking the African 

 form as " nimotypical," the question being decided by the "habitat in 

 Barbaria." 



Ilia. — This has been completely dealt with by Dr. Jordan, who 

 points out that the original description included both iris and ilia, and 

 that Schiffermuller settled the matter in 1776 by giving the name ilia 

 to the species ever since called by that name, and thus by exclusion 

 confining iris to the species universally so called. Dr. Verity's pro- 

 posed alteration, far from " establishing nomenclature on grounds not 

 open to criticism," is, in the face of the International Code, simply 

 indefensible. As Dr. Jordan points out, Linneus' MS. note is not only 

 perfectly valueless for purposes of nomenclature, but if it proved an_y- 

 thing would indicate that he did not possess (or know) any specimen of 

 ilia when he published his original description of iris. 



Xiobe. — Apart from the indisputable fact that the two Linnean 

 specimens now in the collection are both of the eris form, I cannot in 

 the least foUoAv Dr. Verity's argument on this species, for the original 

 description of uiohe distinctly states that the spots are silver — "maculis 

 ar(/enteis " (.S'//.s. Xat., xth ed., p. 481, No. 143). No change is there- 

 fore permissible. 



Adippe. — In this case again Linneus has described two quite un- 

 connected species by the name of c'plippe, and must assuredly come in 

 as his own "first reviser" when he says (Si/s. Nat., xiith ed., p. 786) 

 that the species he calls adippe (p, 786, no. 212) had previously been 

 called qplippe in the Fn. Snec. (no. 1066) in error. The other ci/ilippe 

 {Si/s. Nat., xiith ed., no. 163) is an Indian species, and not a Fritillary 

 at all. The time-honoured name adippe must therefore stand. 



Heruiione and alcijone. — This is another case exactly parallel with 

 that of iris. Two closely related species (if they are two) are joined by 

 Linneus under one name, and Schiffermiiller again comes in as " first 

 reviser," and settles the question which species is to retain the name 

 keniiinne by calling the other alcipme. I am still however not satisfied 

 that the shape of the " organe Jullien " {Bull. Sac. Lfp. (ieurre, i., pp. 

 361 etc., pi. xii), whose functions, if it has any, are quite unknown, is 

 of sufficient importance to constitute a specific ditt'erence. 



Jurtina. — Dr. Verity has overlooked the fact that the description 

 under this name in Sijs. Nat., xth ed., refers back to the original 

 description in the 1st ed. of the Fn. Snec, and that the description 

 was therefore presumably taken from Swedish specimens, and certainly 

 from northern European ones ; so that this name must hold good for 

 the species, and the varietal nomenclature as generally accepted must 

 consequently follow suit. 



Maera.-^Dr. Verity says that of the three Linnean specimens of 

 this species "the g has no trace of the tawny bands," and that thej^ 

 are "very rudimentary, if present at all, in the 2 s. They are certainly 

 present in all three, more distinct in the 3 than in some Swiss speci- 

 mens, and none of them really represent var. )iionnt<»iia, Schilde ; the 

 original description is in the 1st ed. of Fn. Sitec, where reference is 

 made to figures not of the Scandinavian form; we are therefore driven 



