172 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



inserted in the collection very long after the publication of the first 

 name''' ; besides, the specimen is the only Linnean one of its kind and 

 agreeri perfectly with the original description, so that in this case we 

 have particularly good reasons to believe that it is the very one used 

 by Linneus in 1761. 



Anyhow I should deem it wise to accept as typical any single 

 specimen bearing a name in the hand-writing of its author, unless it 

 should not agi'ee with the original description or there should be 

 any other particular cause pointing to the contrary. If for every 

 specimen, which can reasonably be held a type, we were to demand 

 positive proofs that it corresponds to the definition of that status, we 

 would be obliged simply on academic grounds to discard an enormous 

 amount of valuable data, proofs of such a nature being generally 

 impossible to furnish. Finally, however, I wish to state that I fully 

 agree with Dr. Jordan that changes of names ought only to be made 

 when necessary to establish nomenclature on definite bases. 



Having thus summarised my views on the points which have been 

 emphasised by my first critic, I wish to add a few observations regarding 

 what has been said about my paper by Mr. Bethune-Baker,t and by 

 the Rev. G. Wheeler. | 



The former, 1 think, will be fully satisfied with my declaration 

 concerning podaliriuii. As to his observation that "had Linneus 

 marked his own xth. edition, it would have been more easy to accept 

 at least some of the conclusions arrived at " by me, I am glad to be 

 able to point out that the xth. edition has actually been so marked, 

 and that every one of the species described m it, which are marked in 

 the xiith. edition (except two, probably due to an oversight), are also 

 marked in that volume. Thus we have a sure proof that Linneus did 

 possess the palfearctic species he described in the vast majority of cases, 

 and did not add a single one to his collection after having dealt with 

 it. What's more, I am glad to see that species, specimens of which I 

 had considered Linnean, although they were not marked in the xiith. 

 edition, are, on the contrary, actually marked in the xth., thus showing 

 they had only been overlooked by Linneus in going over the former, 

 and that ray inferences, drawn from the labels, the pins and the 

 setting, were quite correct. 



As regards the particular use of viniaiireac, the Rev. G. Wheeler 

 has exhaustively gone into the question and amply proved that my 

 conclusions are correct. Concerning ]n]))iot]io'e, I am quite prepared to 

 see the three names of utieberi, Linnean hippotluie and mirm standing 

 together to correspond to orannla, Linnean viriiaiireae and inalpi)ins.% 

 As a matter of fact, in the two Linnean specimens the orange band on 

 the underside of the hindwings described by Linneus does exist, but it 

 is much shorter, narrower, and less bright than in the large, bright 



* i.e. : after Linneus ebanged the name njiUppe into adippe in his subsequent 

 work, having noticed he had employed the former also for an Oriental Ccthosia. 

 This alteration is not necessary according to modern rules and anyhow the 

 Argynnis has the right of priority. 



t Tlie Ent. Bee, vol. xxv., p. 251 et seq., and p. 272 et seq. 



I Ijoc. cit., vol. xxvi., p. 28 et seq. 



S This name, which does not meet with the approval of the Rev. G. Wheeler 

 is used by Saetonius and by Brutidius in Cicero's Epistidae, and means " inhabi- 

 tant of the Alps." 



