NOTE IN ANSWER TO OBSERVATIONS. 173 



Central-European form, for which I have proposed the name of mirns. 

 I am quite aware that male specimens similar to theLinnean Jiippntho'e 

 do occur in many localities besides Scandinavia, but this species having 

 been described in Fauna saecioa, the nimotypical race is certainly the 

 Scandinavian one, and a more exhaustive study of the females will 

 surely show whether it occurs in tuto also in other localities ; anyhow, 

 minis is perfectly distinct from it in some regions, such as those I 

 have mentioned in my first description. 



/r/rt.s. — With reference to this name both Mr. Bethune-Baker and 

 the Rev. G. Wheeler have, it seems to me, misinterpreted my exhibition 

 of facts and my conclusions, although I have done my best to make 

 things clear in my private correspondence with the former. I will 

 now try and complete the data as well as the inferences I draw from 

 them. The name idafi, as Mr. Bethune-Baker correctly states, first 

 appeared in Linnean literature in St/st. Xat., xth. edit., accompanied, 

 by the following description: " Pajiilio barbariis alifi nifpis concolorihns, 

 piinrtis 10 fiaris oratiii sparsis. Habitat in Indiis." I will waste no 

 words to show what an extraordinary assumption Mr. Bethune- 

 Baker makes in stating that " the description exactly suits an Indian 

 female of P. icanis," and again that " in the absence of the type I 

 (B-B.) look upon that idaa as the female of our icani'i." Surely 

 Linneus has never revealed himself so inaccurate as to describe as 

 "sparsis," "ovatis" and "fiavis" markings, which in icariis female would 

 be quite similar to those he very clearly describes as "fascia terminali 

 riifa Dcellari " in the other idas. I will presently deal with, nor can we 

 be so offensive towards him as to think he would not have detected 

 the similarity of icanis to his arr/nx, instead of placing it amongst the 

 Barhari and right at the end of his group Papilio ( = butterflies) ! For 

 what species Barharus idas is meant, it is difficult to say, and it is useless 

 to make hazardous assumptions about it ; but what interests us in the 

 present case is that we can be pretty well certain it is not a Lycaena, 

 as none of the knov/n species would answer to that description. 



Idas has been the subject of a special correspondence between Prof. 

 Courvoisier, of Bale, and myself, and I am glad to be able to quote his 

 authority, and say that he is perfectly of my opinion that the groups 

 into which Linneus has divided his insects ought to be considered as 

 genera, this having been the first attempt to create them; so that as 

 the International Code on Zoological Nomenclature does not prevent 

 us from using the same name in different genera understood in the 

 modern restricted sense, there is no reason why Linneus should not 

 have done the same in his widely distinct groups of species. I conclude 

 I cannot follow either Mr. Bethune-Baker's or the Rev. G. Wheeler's 

 arguments by which the former considers the name idas as " pre- 

 occupied in the group" Lycaena, a^ndi the latter as "a homonym which 

 cannot be employed for any species." If this were the case many 

 other well-known names would have to be altered, such as hylas, eleus 

 and tclainon, which are all three amongst the Barbari of Linneus, and 

 have, notwithstanding, been subsequently accepted for a Lycaena, a 

 ChrysophauKs and a Sericiniis, not to mention many others. 



Hoping to have set out mj views clearly on this point, I will now 

 consider the second Linnean name idas applied to a Pleheins ruralis. 

 This name we first find in the iind. edition of Fauna anecica given as 

 noiiien tririale, to the insect which has the followmg noinen sperAficnm. 



