112 Journal New York Entomological Society. [Voi. iv. 



to condemn, in the most emphatic way, colored squares, silver or beau- 

 tiful golden ones in the same way, and also numbers unless the absolute 

 data and locality are also given. After many years lists which refer to 

 numbers are lost, or the makers have not indicated on the lists what 

 they mean, and many a time I have been driven frantic in looking over 

 old collections. As a friend once said, God alone knows what they 

 mean, and He won't tell. When I commenced my collection I was satis- 

 fied to have a single pair to represent the species, but now I cannot get 

 enough individuals to represent all manner and kinds of variation 

 brought about by natural causes. In the past I therefore knew this 

 species or that, but now in many of our genera I nearly get brain fever 

 in trying to determine where a species begins or ends. 



In looking over our lists I would divide the species, so-called, into 

 two classes, species and gradational or geographical forms. It should 

 be remembered that most of our American entomologists were located 

 in the Eastern part of the United States and were familiar with our 

 Eastern species. When specimens were received from the West, more 

 particularly the Pacific coast, it was of course seen that there was a 

 difference between the Eastern and Western forms, especially where a 

 few specimens were examined. This led to the description of new spe- 

 cies (so-called), but there was a total ignorance of distribution, or what 

 gradations or variations might be found between the extremes of locali- 

 ties. The same thing in a lesser degree occurs now. We are dependant 

 upon specimens from localities where collectors accidentally happen to 

 be, and our specimens (or species) show marked variations, in many 

 cases due only to difference of locality. Nothing can be more perni- 

 cious than determining species from locality, yet some naturalists advo- 

 cate this. The very fact that you determine a species by locality shows 

 the whole weakness of such a procedure. What would be thought of a 

 person who would describe a new species thus : Papilio humbugi differs 

 from Papilio sp. by being found in Oregon, the latter flying in the vi- 

 cinity of Philadelphia. This would be really better and indicate more 

 than trying to describe minute geographical difterences, and then really 

 identifying the thing by difference in locality. I am positive that should 

 some one go to work and hunt up the original descriptions of some of our 

 species and find out the locality from'whence came the types, and then 

 get specimens representing the furthermost point of distribution and de- 

 scribe all these as new species, they would produce species of equal 

 value to some of those already described and in our lists. It is ■ per- 

 fectly legitimate to describe apparent new forms, but they should be 



