312 THE entomologist's record. 



their application, we find that "personal preferences for so-called 

 purity of language " are «of sacrificed by our authors. No doubt it 

 is grateful to the petty spitef ulness of ordinary humanity to find them, 

 after expounding principles and laying down rules in so godlike a 

 manner, to be, after all, so very human. According to a pra,ctice 

 they formulate in Nov. ZooL, vol. ii., p. 175, specific names derived 

 from names of persons are to have one "i" not two added. This is an 

 excellent rule to follow, but it must not be retrospective. " No com- 

 promise is possible." Nevertheless, we find, for example, dahlii 

 altered to daJili, and abbottii to abbotti. A somewhat curious circum- 

 stance is that our authors say daJdi, but give all the synonymic re- 

 ferences to dahlii, dahli appearing in this work apparently for the first 

 time. But when we come to abbottii, which is the name given by 

 Swainson to Sphecodina abbottii, p. 602, our authors give everywhere 

 abbotti and abboti, although, in each of the few instances we have 

 looked up, the references are to abbottii, following Swainson, or abbotii, 

 corrected by the American authors to accord with the name of John 

 Abbot, which Swainson, however, writes Abbott. We have little doubt 

 our authors are the first to write abbotti, but they ought, according to 

 their own rule, to have written abboti, yet to this name (really, no 

 doubt, abbotii, though they quote abboti) they put a note of astonish- 

 ment. All which muddle enforces the propriety of the rule " Xo co)a- 

 proiiiise is possible,'' and these two names, with all others, should be left 

 as given by their sponsors, dahlii and abbottii. These remain the 

 names, though it should be proved that no such persons as Dahl or 

 Abbot ever existed. We wonder whether Swainson knew the name 

 was Abbot, but thought " purity of language " required Abbott. Cor- 

 rectly, but inconsistently, we find Amphoni/x dupondiel, useful, perhaps, 

 as a barrier against iiiachaoni, trist, &c. 



I'To he continued.) 



Critical Note on Melitaea parthenie and M. athalia. 



By CHAELES OBEETHUB, F.E.S. 

 These two insects, closely allied, but quite distinct specifically, 

 inhabit the same districts (but each maintaining its own habitat), in 

 the neighbourhood of Rennes. M. athalia, however, extends further 

 north than II. parthenie, and I believe that, in the northwest, Rennes 

 is the last locality for the latter species ; nor have I ever found this 

 species farther north than Cesson, a village situated some 4 kilometres 

 east of Rennes. I have, however, found it at Mesneuf (14 kilometres 

 southeast of Rennes), and in the neighbourhood of Bourg-des- 

 Comptes (16-20 kilometres southwest of Rennes), the latter being 

 the farthest locality to the northwest, known to me, for M. didijma. 

 M. parthenie prefers a dry habitat. It appears twice in a year (1) at 

 the end of May and the commencement of June, (2) in August, 

 exactly as does M. didyma. M. athalia only appears once a year 

 (throughout June) in the neighbourhood of Rennes, up to mid-July 

 at Huelgoat (Finisterre), the most westerly locality in which I have 

 found it. It is found throughout the north of France, and is, of 

 course, continued into England. In the neighbourhood of Rennes, 

 M. athalia inhabits chiefly damp woods and wooded fields. I have 

 found it abundantly in the forest of Rennes, in the woods and forest 

 of the Monti'ort district, in the woods of Vern (10 kilometres south of 

 Rennes), and, formerly, in a meadow, by the side of the river Ize, at the 



