EREBIA MANTO, ESP., VAR. CAECILIA. 35 



liamhnri. — I have already (Vol. xxv., p. 233) expressed nij accept- 

 ance of this alteration in the place of Idas, Ramb. 



There is one further point to which I must refer in terms of most 

 energetic protest, though Dr. Verity is in this matter only carrying out to 

 its logical conclusion the hopeless confusion that was initiated when it 

 was decreed that the sub-specific or racial name should follow the specific 

 name without any explanatory connecting word. Probably the authors 

 of this unpardonable blunder failed to see where it must logically lead. 

 Such an expression as " hrassicae brassicae biassicae" (and there is no 

 obvious reason, in view of some of the strings of names already 

 in use, why it should not be repeated twice, if not three times, more) 

 is pure, unmitigated nonsense ; it would be better, as Dr. Dixey 

 suggested to me in conversation, to say "brassicae recurring" and 

 have done with it; when anything beyond the generic and specific names 

 are required, it should always be stated whether it is "sub-species" (or 

 better, local race), or an aberration of the same, or an aberration of 

 the typical form, or whatever is intended ; and when the typical form 

 is meant it is amply sufficient to use the generic and specific names 

 alone or followed by ' type ' or 'f.t. ' ' (forma typica).' Any publications 

 using these unintelligible (and unintelligent) strings of names should 

 be subjected to a rigorous boycott until they desist. Painful as are the 

 unexplained series of names employed by Dr. Verity, his worst sins in 

 this matter are, it is due to him to say, quite venial in comparison 

 with some other cases that we have met with. 



Erebia manto, Esp., var. caecilia. {With tu-o plates.) 



By T. A., CHAPMAN, M.D. 



I owe a considerable debt to Mr. Warren for his paper in Ent. Uec, 

 vol. XXV., p. 273, in that he rescues for me a good intention from the 

 well-known limbo to which it has for a long time been sliding. In my 

 reference to the K. caecilia of the Pyrenees in the Trans. Ent. Soc. 

 Lond., some fifteen years ago. I stated that the dorsal armature 

 differed in manto and caecilia (Pyrenees). In this, I not long after 

 suspected I was wrong, and that the supposed difference was a matter 

 of the specimens being somewhat differently mounted. My intention 

 to clear up this point has up to the present been in abeyance. 



In the result, I find that the dorsal spines in inantn can be mounted 

 to look just as those of caecilia did, and rice rersa, and that as regards 

 the appendages there is nothing to distinguish tbe two forms. In both 

 there is variation in the details of the teeth on the clasps, as there is 

 in all the Erebias, where the body or shaft of the clasp carries teeth. 



Mr. Warren finds a difference in the neuration of the two forms, 

 but on careful examination of the neuration I cannot find any constant 

 difference between the two forms ; in both there is considerable 

 variation. (See Plate III.) 



To take Mr. Warren's points seriatim : — Forewing. (1) All the 

 veins more curved in caecilia. If there is any difference there is more 

 curvature in vianto, e.</., view 4 of the hindwing. (2) Length of cell 

 greater in caecilia. As a result of measurement of the wings shown in 

 plate, the cell is 52-8 % of the wing in manto, 52-4 % in caecilia. 

 (3) P^orm of discoidal nervure* between 4 and 6 less sharply angled in 

 manto. The angle is much the same in both, the actual angle is 



