264 THE entomologist's record. 



appears on the surface. The title of my own comments has sacrificed 

 accuracy to brevity; for 1 will concede at or>ce that descriptions plus 

 figures (not "plus /7//»7c" — the single drawing of wing-marking which 

 M. Oberthiir desiderates) furnish the ideal elucidation of a new species. 

 But the question, as it is presented by M. Oberthiir, really resolves itself 

 into that of the indisiienmbilitii of a figure ; and one knows from his 

 writings, as well as from correspondence with him, that he would 

 consider a species more validlj- erected by a figure alone than by a 

 description alone! And even without admitting that that extreme 

 position is really arguable, it is evident that the case to be tried is 

 mainly that of descriptions supplemented by a figure versus figures 

 supplemented by a description. 



Which is the more important, then, the description or the figure? 

 I unhesitatingly affirm it is the former. This, as Mr. C. Davies 

 Sherborn truly urges, is the author's own work ; the figure generally- 

 has to be entrusted to another hand. Of course, it can be, and should 

 be, supervised by the author ; but there are countless opportunities for 

 oversight or discrepancy. And, says Dr. Chapman, "a bad figure 

 may be -worse than none." So, too, M. Oberthiir: " Sans bonne figure," 

 etc. 



Here is the first crucial point. The law which M. Oberthiir 

 advocates is absolutely iiupractirahle. If a new rule is to be framed, we 

 must leave out the word "bonne" aad allow any rubbish in the way 

 of illustration to do service in giving theoretical validity to a name. 

 We have already found it is inevitable that this be done in the matter 

 of descriptions, so that we shall be no worse off; but neither shall we 

 be bettered, nor will M. Oberthiir's aim have been secured. If we 

 insist upon a " good " figure, whose is to be the standard ? It is clear 

 that the work of M. Culot will be safe for some generations to come ; 

 but most of Maassen's and Felder's Geometrid figures will have to go 

 at once — at least, so far as I am concerned — and others will follow as 

 standards of taste advance, nor will there at any period, present or 

 future, be even approximate unanimity as to which are valid. 



The second, and still more acute, " crucial point " is that which 

 Dr. Chapman recognizes as "' difficult and knotty " : can the proposed 

 law be made at all retrospective ? If it can, then even M. Culot's 

 superb work is doubtless tottering to its fall. Twenty years hence, at 

 the present rate of progress, Dr. Chapman's " minimum to be 

 demanded " (a good photograph) may be conceded, and another 

 retrospective sweep will cancel the validity of all hand-work. Fifty 

 years hence, the minimum demand will be a good photograph of each 

 detail of external morphology ; a hundred years hence, nothing less 

 will satisfy than the addition of the internal anatomy; and everj'^ time, 

 an almost entire nomenclature will be superseded, unless a few 

 philanthropic millionaires come to the aid of Lepidopterology and 

 supply the new detail to all the old descriptions before the thousand 

 self-advertisers have had time to deal with their own collections under 

 new names. 



Personally, I have identified many more species with confidence 

 from descriptions alone than from figures alone ; and I have had my 

 share of work to do in identification. Mr. Meyrick tells me he has 

 had the same experience. I have made out very few of Felder's species 

 without the aid of his " types " ; the few of Maassen's which I have 



