168 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 



(as Fletcher has pointed out) many hybrid plants, water-fowl, and 

 even cattle are equally fertile inter xc .' With all due deference to 

 Mr. Barrett's opinions, I would urge that as evolution becomes more 

 certainly patent as a factor now at work in determining species, and 

 when more careful experiments have been performed on a large scale 

 with the view of proving the fertility of hybrids, the more certain we 

 are to find that closely allied species — of the nature of these Zi/i/amae — 

 will give us fertile hybrid progeny. This, however, must not be 

 allowed to interfere with the recognition of their specific distinctness 

 in a state of nature. Oberthiir writes :— " Ce qui complique la 

 question, c'est qu'ilest av^re que les Zmiaenac de ce groupe s'accouplent 

 facilement avec des papillons qui n'appartiennent pas a leur espece " 

 (Tjip. (/('s Pj/renct'-'f, p. 31) ; still, he does not on this account lump 

 these allied species. Meyrick, whose weakness for lumping allied 

 species to which he has not paid particular attention is well known, 

 keeps the Zygfi^nas distinct, and writes: — "The species are very 

 similar, often inter-breed, and are particularly liable to form local 

 races, so that their study is excessively difficult." Kirby {Jiutts. 

 and Motlis, p. 92) writes of X. hmvrrae : — " Many experienced 

 entomologists consider this insect to be only a variety of the last." 

 With the exception of Barrett, we know no "experienced entomologist " 

 who docs this. Of course, plenty of collectors, who are not students, 

 make the suggestion in their early days. It appears to us deplorable, 

 from the scientific point of view, to attempt to unite such distinct 

 insects. 



I was not aware, when I wrote my note on Z. nwdirai/inh, Bdv., 

 and insisted on its specific distinctness from Z. tn'fhlii and Z. 

 hmicrrac [Xatcs on the Zi/i/acniilac, pp. 16-17) that Oberthiir had 

 already come to this conclusion, although his retention of Staudinger's 

 name diihia for the species is quite inadmissible. As a practical field 

 naturalist, who knows all these insects in a state of nature, we value 

 his opinion, and find ourselves in almost absolute agreement with what 

 he writes concerning them. He remarks : — " On distingue aisement 

 la plupart des individus de trifolii, lonicerae, dubia, fdipcndulae et 

 transalpinct, mais il est impossible de s^parer avec une certitude com- 

 plete certaines Zi/naena lonicerae de certaines dubia on meme de 

 trifolii " [Lcp. des Pi/rences, p. 81). Of course, individual cases of 

 difficulty will always occur in the location of such closely allied species. 

 Another statement fully bearing out my remarks f Notes on the 

 Zi/'iaenidae, pp. lG-17) that Z. inedicat/inis { = dHbia, Stdgr.) is much 

 nearer Z. lonicerae than Z. trifolii, a variety of which Staudinger 

 makes it, is a quotation by South, who says : — " Christoph would 

 appear to hold the opinion that dnbia, Htdgr., and also stoecJiailis, Bork., 

 are southern Alpine forms of Z. lonicerae " [Entom., xxiv., p. 235). 

 I have already suggested {Ibid., p. 18) that stoec/iadis, H.-S. (from the 

 neighbourhood of Cannes) is specifically identical with Z. rnedicai/inis, 

 but they are certainly distinct from Z. lonicerae, and Staudinger 

 treats Z. stoechadis, Bkh., as distinct from Z. stoechadis, H.-S. 

 Oberthiir's remark that " il est impossible de s^parer avec une 

 certitude complete certaines Zi/t/aena lonicerae de certaines dubia,'' 

 also suggests a close alliance between these species. 



It is generally assumed that c/iaron, Bdv. [Mon. Zi/;/., p. 65) non 

 lib. = stocc/tadis, H.-S., and that both are synonymous with nwdi- 



