174 TiiK kntomolo(;ist"s kkcoud. 



" Papilio idas alls ccaiKlatis caenilcis : /totitiris /ascia triiin'jiali tufa 

 occlhni : snbtiis inijiillix caenih'n-anicntt'ix." 



The importance of this definition statin<>: the wings are blue with 

 orange marginal lunules is greatly increased bj' the fact that amongst 

 the older (very large, thick pins and wings not set) Linnean specimens 

 there exists a female l.i/rocna answering exactly to that description. 

 As it is a most typical specimen of what Standinger calls /.. ariinro- 

 (f)io)iioit, Bgstr., female aberi'ation vallariia, Stdgr. (not to mention the 

 other names it has been known by), I suggested in my first paper on 

 this subject to adopt the name idox, thus obviating the hopeless 

 confusion wliich exists in the nomenclat\ire of this species and of its 

 near ally anius. The Rev. G. Wheeler suggests, instead, going back 

 to the names " aniim" and " aft/oii " on the ground that Linneus has, 

 according to him, " included the two species under one name" ; but 

 this assumption is again (juite wrong, for Linneus only subsequently 

 suggested that his uhis might, be the female of his an/iis. V\ g now see 

 quite clearly that he was accidentally right the first time in describing 

 the male specimens under one name and the female ones under another. 

 He also perhaps made a mistake in grouping his other specimen, a 

 brown one, with idas and labelling it with this name, as it may he a 

 female of annis (a point of which I am not certain, as already stated in 

 my previous paper) : but this has no importance, as this mistake 

 would have occurred later, after he had clearly defined idas as blue in 

 the noiiioi xiuriiinoii, a fact upon which Linneus himself could not 

 come back, and which fixes the blue female in the collection as the type 

 of idos and excludes the brown one definitely. Anyhow the name lutjon, 

 ScbitVermiiller must fall before arti'un, L., now we know for cei'tain for 

 which of the two species Linneus mesint the latter ; SchilTermiiller 

 was unfortunate in his choice between the two, just as he was with 

 the aforementioned Afiatmae and Sati/ri. 



The root of the question as to whether my suggestion of adopting 

 the names nn/iis, L. and idan, L., is to be accepted or not lies in the 

 following propositions : (1) Can the same name be used to designate 

 both a riebeiiis and a liailxxnis .' (2) Is the nomen spcciticinn of a 

 Linnean species to be considered as its first description ? (3) Is the 

 blue Li/roena in the Linnean collection, which in every way seems to 

 be the one from which the itomoi siKrifinnn of idas was drawn, to be 

 accepted as its " type ? " 



Some of the criticisms of the Rev. G. Wheeler I have answered in 

 an indirect way, dealing with Dr. Jordan's and Mr. Bethune-P)aker's 

 papers ; suffice it then for me to add a few words concerning some 

 species he mentions particularly. 



His observations about the names ./o.s<'» Siudjasitis are quite correct 

 and I discovered my oversight very soon after my first paper was 

 published. 



Those concerning nudx' I quite understand he should have made 

 and I was wrong in not being more exhaustive in my first exposition 

 of the matter. I should have stated that I was myself struck at first 

 by the fact that the description and the specimen labelled by Linneus 

 did not agree, the former mentioning inacidis aniruti'ix whereas the 

 latter belongs to the form ois usually, in its most typical form, with 

 no silver at all on the wings. It was only after a closer investigation 

 I was able to understand that the description, and the specimen 



