THE REVISION OF THE SPHINGIDES. 311 



of the species, meaning the form which is supposed to be the com- 

 monest, the most widely spread, or the most ancient, &c. " The type is, 

 as such, not at all the type of the species, but is the type for the arbi- 

 trary name given to the first specimen or specimens, and applied by 

 common consent to all the specimens which belong to the species, of 

 which the type specimen is only a member, like any other individual." 

 A moment's thought will surely show that since the greatest difter- 

 ences of opinion exist in the case of many species as to which form 

 is typical, and since opinion must certainly vary as each species is 

 more fully understood throughout its range, no finer source for wt- 

 stability of nomenclature than this confusion of two distinct meanings 

 of the word type can be imagined. 



Although it is dealt with under the name of classification, the 

 system of what has been called trinomial (as distinguished from bi- 

 nomial) names, is rather one of nomenclature. Some hard things 

 have been said of our authors under this head. It is difficult, how- 

 ever, to find any real fault with their position. A certain species is 

 called Celerio euphorbiae, generic and specific names. Our authors so 

 call it— pure binomialism. They point out that it has many other 

 names. It is a Sphim/ida, as belonging to the family of Sphmgidae ; 

 a ChoerocaDipina by subfamily and by tribe. Though these names 

 exist they are not stated when we mention Celerio euphorbiae, and do 

 not interfere with the binomial system. Similarly, names on the other 

 side, as of varieties, form, aberrations, &c., exist, but, equally, their 

 existence does not interfere with the binomial appellation of Celerio 

 euphorbiae for the species as a whole. We are not discussing whether 

 tithijiitali be or be not a distinct species. Our authors regard it as a 

 var. of C. euphorbiae. It has been usual to state this by calling it C. 

 euphorbiae var. tithi/inali. In the Revision we find C. euphorbiae tithymali. 

 Trinomialism ! When we come to what, in this case, is apparently 

 the typical form in both senses, we have C. euphorbiae euphorbiae, and 

 as forms of this (.'. euphorbiae euphorbiae f. grentzenber(/i, &c. Now, if 

 we use these same words the use or disuse of the little syllable rar. 

 can hardly make the difference between binomialism and trinomialism. 

 If i/ou are to iiatiie varieties and aberrations you. have tlie thiwj, and you 

 may write it down with any variations you like. By omitting the par- 

 ticle var. you have simplification, nothing more nor less. The authors 

 object to var. as not being of sufficiently defined meaning. C. euphor- 

 biae tithymali means that tithymali is not a var. in the common, loose 

 sense, still less an aberration, but is a geographical race or subspecies. 

 For the fourth name an initial is inserted for such terms as aberration 

 {ab.), form (/.), local form (/. loc), seasonal form {f.t.), &c. We 

 think it would be found of definite advantage that the specific be 

 divided from the subspecific name by, say, a comma. This would, 

 we imagine, be better grammar and would do much to disarm those 

 who take their stand on binomialistic purism. The icarus difficulty 

 would, of course, be solved by calling the type (natural type as 

 accepted generally) Polyommatus icarus, alexis. We are not learned 

 enough in the various forms of icarus to say whether the type 

 (nomenclatural) would be a specimen of P. icarus, icarus, or of P. 

 icarus ab. icarus, or P. icarus, f. 5 icarus. The difficulty is not in 

 handling the names but in our knowledge of P. icarus. Whilst wholly 

 approving of the general principle here laid down, when we come to 



