NOTES ON COLLECTING. 819 



1. — Types should not be kept in private collections, but given over 

 to museums, where they are less subject to the possibility of being 

 lost or destroyed. 



2. — Figures are indispensable, but it is very important how the 

 objects are figured. In the first place we must not forget that only a 

 very limited number of publications have at disposal such funds as 

 would allow the illustration of all descriptions by coloured plates, such 

 as in M. Oberthiir's J^tmlcK. A good photograph is of course much 

 cheaper, and certainly the minimum to be demanded, as Dr. Chapman 

 claims, but it cannot enlighten us upon questions of coloration. In 

 this point, as it seems to me, satisfactory results could be obtained by 

 a good nomenclator of colours after the pattern of Eidgeway's or 

 Saccardo's, but much more complete than these. Such a nomenclator, 

 brought into general use, would give us a fairly good idea of the 

 coloration. An international prize-competition might furnish us with 

 a nomenclator that would suit for this purpose. 



3. — But there is another point, which in some cases may lead to 

 misunderstandings. Some species are so very much alike or of such 

 small dimensions, that a figure might be incapable of giving us any 

 certainty as to what we have to deal with. Besides, we must not 

 forget that not all specimens from which the first description or figure 

 are made, are absolutely perfect, and that therefore a description and 

 figure from a more or less defective type might not always furnish us 

 with sufficient clue for identification. It would as a consequence be 

 desirable to have means of checking our suppositions and this could be 

 arrived at by the description and figuration of external as well as 

 internal or anatomical structural pecularities of the species described. 



4. — Thus we arrive at another point of the utmost importance, i.e., 

 that every species to be described should be thoroughly examined from 

 every point of view, including its inter-relations to its nearest relatives. 

 The author of a new species should not only describe it, but should 

 also prove it to be different from all others known to science. Every 

 description of a new species therefore should be accompanied by a 

 revision of the genus it belongs to, or at least of its group. 



All this, of course, would make it much more difficult to put out 

 lots of new names, but I am sure, that if one or another species should 

 remain undescribed for more or less time, no one but an ambitious 

 author will be the loser, whereas entomology as a science will certainly 

 be the gainer, relieved of so many confusing — and unnecessary — names 

 of "new " lepidoptera. The more we complicate the laws for valable 

 descriptions and restrict the sport of namegiving, the more we shall 

 simplify serious systematic work. 



J^OTES ON COLLECTING, Etc. 



Variation in Euchloe euphenoides. — In reply to Lieut. -Col. 

 Manders' suggestion I have looked through my series of K. eiiiihenoides, 

 110 specimens, from Digne and Marseilles. Four examples from Digne 

 have a slight touch of orange on the extreme border of the wing and 

 one has a rich orange border 3mm. deep. The date of capture of this 

 last is the beginning of April, 1901, Marseilles. The specimens I took 

 at Digne were much smaller than those taken at Marseilles. — P. A, H. 

 MuscHAMP, F.E.S., Stiifa. October 25th, 1911. 



