CURRENT NOTES. 143 



a volume of 394 pages, with twelve plates, several of which are 

 beautifully coloured. The Presidential address for 1907-8, by Mr. A. 

 Pictet, is most interesting. This well-known scientist was followed in 

 the presidential chair for 1908-9 by Professor J. L. Eeverdin, who is 

 becoming almost as well-known to British lepidopterists as his 

 colleague. Professor C. Blachier. Besides the reports of the meetings 

 for 1908, there are several special papers — " Some forms of Erebia 

 tyndarus," by Dr. J. L. Eeverdin, " Contribution to the study of 

 PalaBarctic Sphingid hybrids," and " Catalogue of the Palaearctic 

 Sphingid hybrids," both by Dr. Denso, " Life-history of Macrot/n/lacia 

 rubi," by Mr. Arnold Pictet, " The differentiation of Sati/rus heriniont, 

 S. syriaca, and S. alcyone," by Mr. J. Julien, " On the Glarnisch," by 

 Mr. P. A. Muschamp, " Note on Leptidia sinapis ab. erysitni," by Mr. 

 J. Culot, "New or little-known forms of Lepidoptera," by Mr. C. 

 Lacreuze, " Aberrations of Lycsenids," by Dr. J. Eeverdin, " New 

 Aberrations of Palaearctic Lepidoptera," by Professor C. Blachier. 



The two papers by Dr. Denso are particularly good, and must be 

 referred to by all entomologists interested in the question of hybridity, 

 and we must congratulate Dr. Denso not only on the subject-matter of 

 these papers, but also in publishing the first of them in French, as it 

 will no doubt find additional readers. There is, however, one thing to 

 which we hope our Geneva friends will, with ourselves, take objection. 

 It is to the use of new terms in place of others of prior and old- 

 established claim, and we hope that they will, with us, insist on the 

 necessity for keeping to the strict law of priority with regard to the 

 terms "hybrid" and "mongrel," and to refuse to alter in new 

 literature these old and well-established names. It is now more than 

 50 years ago since Darwin differentiated the crosses of two species as 

 " hybrid," and the crossing of two races of the same species as 

 "mongrel," and it is at least 38 years since Staudinger strictly defined 

 a " variety " as a local race of a species, and an " aberration " as a 

 chance variation, not racial. To speak of hybrids as "hybrid species," 

 and mongrels as " hybrid subspecies," is as misleading as to call 

 mongrels "varieties," neither having the legality of priority or custom 

 behind it. Nor has the term " subspecies," in place of Staudinger's 

 term "variety," any real standing. Uniformity of terminology can 

 only be obtained as uniformity of names, by the application of the law 

 of priority, and, after all, it is such a little matter (not interfering with 

 the facts dealt with) to ask, that both Dr. Denso and Professor 

 Standfuss should follow the usual zoological rules. 



The way A)iiorpha hybr. invena {=populixocellata), Tutt, Brit. 

 Lep., iii., pp. 395-6 (1902), is treated, appears rather absurd. The 

 name was definitely stated, in 1902, to apply to the cross of populi ^ 

 X ocellata J , and everything known to date is published under this 

 name. It is still the intention of the author that it should apply to 

 this cross. Dr. Denso quotes all the records, from the Nat. Hist. 

 Brit. Lep., iii., pp. 395-6, even to the extracts from letters, in his 

 synonymy, and then gives precedence to Standfuss' name rothschildi 

 (1907). We can understand Dr. Denso's admiration for his chief at 

 Ziirich, but whilst invcrsa^populig x ocellata 'i , we must claim 

 priority for it by five years over Standfuss' name. Personal preference 

 cannot over-ride priority. We trust the editor of the Bulletin to look 

 into the matter as interesting entomologists outside Switzerland. 



