204 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



glimmei- of humour permissible with an old friend, I might suggest 

 that Mr. Bethune- Baker should get a pair of spectacles that would 

 not slip ofi" at a critical point, as they obviously did, or he would have 

 read that I said a line or two further on " should someone find reason 

 to divide Li/caenopsift into several genera, Celastrina would become the 

 name of that containing aryioluH.'''' It savours at an attempt at a 

 surgical operation to point out that this clearly means that in any 

 circumstance Li/cacnopsis adheres to JunaUltis. 



My own opinion was decidedly that given by ]\Ir. Prout, but I 

 referred the question to him as one of our authorities on nomenclature. 

 The question was, Felder gave to haralclns the generic name Lt/cai'iuipsis 

 because he considered it was not congeneric with arf/ioliis, does this in 

 any Avay tell against placing art/ioliix under Lycaenopsis, when they are 

 held to be congeneric and Vv^hen any other generic name for arifioliifi 

 is invalid, or more modern than Lj/caenopsis .^ Mr. Prout said it did 

 not. 



Next time I have to report such a matter, I must not condense it 

 into a short sentence, but enlarge it, as I have, in fact, to do now, into 

 a good long paragraph. 



[My good friend Dr. Chapman has kindly sent me the above note 

 before inserting it in the Knt. Becr.rd, and of jourse I must say a word 

 in reply as he has misunderstood the gist of my remarks. 



It will be seen on a second reading of my article that I accept the 

 Doctor's reasonings and statements at least temporarily. I differed, 

 and diliered strongly, from a statement of Mr. Prout's— but that state- 

 ment is given as Mr. Prout's, not as Dr. Chapman's. My glasses had 

 not slipped off at the critical point as I should have thought the 

 doctor would have seen on reading the paragraph beginning at the 

 fourth line of p. 163 ante, where I expressly accept his statement of 

 the case for the time being. 



I must, however, cay here that Dr. Chapman's explanation of Mr. 

 Prout's opinion as i/iren above puts an entirely different meaning on 

 the case from that I had imagined, but I hold that my interpi-etation 

 of it, as it was given origmally and as I transcribed it, was the only 

 possible interpretation of it. — G.T.B-B.] 



Remarks on Dr. Verity's Reply to one of his Critics. 



By G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER, F.L.S., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 



" J'engage done tons a eviter dans leurs ecrits toute personalite, 

 toute allusion depassant les limites de la discussion la plus sincere et 

 la plus courtoise." 



1 want to make two observations on Dr. Verity's reply. He 

 charges me, by a negative assertion, with being offensive to the great 

 naturalist Linnteus. He says : " Surely Linnaeus has never revealed 

 himself so inaccurate as to describe as spar.sis, nvatis and Jiavm mark- 

 ings, which in icariis female would be quite similar to those he very 

 clearly describes as \fascia terniinali riifa ocellaii.'"' No, certainly laot 

 — because the " piinctis 10 fiavLs ovatis sparsu" in the strongly marked 

 specimens of feinale icarns are very emphatically not like the fa>tcia 

 teriiiinali riifa ocellari of art/Ks, but are quite correctly described in the 

 words of Linnseus, and I am afraid I must repeat that the description 



