OBSERVATIONS ON DR. VKRITY S REVIEW, 



251 



Observations oh Dr. Verity's Review of the Linnean Collection and 

 his sugi^ested Nomenclatorial Alterations. 



By G. T. BETHUNE-BAKER, F.L.S., F.Z.S. 

 In the Journal of the Linnean Suciet)/ (Zoolof/i/), vol. xxxii., p. 173, 

 etc., Dr. Verity has set down his conclusions after a very careful survey 

 of the Linnean Collection. Four months have elapsed since the issue 

 of that paper, with a brief criticism by Dr. K. Jordan ; during that 

 time I have been endeavouring to reconcile myself to Dr. Verity's 

 drastic changes, but the more I review the situation the more I feel the 

 impossibility of accepting his alterations. The entire paper is based 

 on the assumption that the Linnean specimens are types. He says, 

 " In all cases in which the examination of the ti/pes seems to necessitate 

 alteration," etc. A type as we understand it to-day was absolutely 

 unknown in the days of Linnaeus, and we have no evidence of what 

 species his collection contained at the time of publication of the tenth 

 edition of the Si/stcma Nat.iira\ It is therefore quite impossible to 

 accept the Linnean specimens as tijpes, this being so, neither can we 

 consider that the races named are niinofypical races, in fact we have 

 some direct evidence that they are not. For instance, in dealing with 

 Pieris napi, Dr. Verity says, " Suffice it, then, now to have established 

 that the Scandinavian race is the nimotypical one." To my mind 

 this is very far from being so established. What are the facts of the 

 ease? Linnfeus had one specimen in his collection in the year 1767. 

 "We have no evidence that that specimen was in his possession in 1758 

 when the insect was named. The whole argument for the changes 

 proposed depends on " the important fact that Linnseus marked in his 

 own interleaved copy of the Sijat. Xatur(C, xiith ed., every species he 

 possessed specimens of." Now had Linnteus marked his own xth edition 

 it would have been more easy to accept at least some of the conclusions 

 arrived at, but we have practically no evidence which of the marked 

 species in the xiith ed. he had when he issued the xth ed., nine years 

 previously, whilst it is generally accepted that he named a large num- 

 ber of species that were not in his own collection — some even from 

 figures then in existence. The description given on p. 468 would suit 

 any P. napi: it should also be noted that no habitat is given, but 

 several references are given to plates and figures then in existence, and 

 these can scarcely be said to belong to the Scandinavian form. The 

 references are definite, and no one can say that the one Linnean speci- 

 men now in existence is the one from which the description was taken. 

 We must, therefore, take the former and not the latter ; to my mind 

 this is the only reasonable course, and it becomes more reasonable still 

 when it is considered that Dr. Verity's purely hypothetical suggestion 

 involves the altering of names known all over the world and in use for 

 a hundred and fifty years. 1 will now go into a few species in more or 

 less detail. 



Papilio podalirii(s. — This specimen was named in the xth ed. S>/xt. 

 Nat., p. 486. There is no description, but definite references to works 

 and figures in existence, figures that are quite good representations of 

 the Central European insect. Article 25 of the International Code on 

 ZooUxjical Nomenclature on the Law of Priority is as follows: — "The 

 valid name of a genus or species can be only that name under which 

 it was first designated on the condition [a) That this name was pub- 



