14 [.June, 



grey ; the abdomen very narrow, depressed, and reddisli-hrown. Zetterstedt only 

 knew the male ; the female is very similar to it, but has the abdomen fusiform and 

 the metatarsi yellow. A pair of this well marked and peculiar species were sent to 

 me for identification by Mr. Dale, of Glanville Wootton in May, 1877. 



. {To be continued). 



REPLY TO ME. MEYRICK'S OBSERVATIONS ON THE SYNONYMY 

 OF CERTAIN MICRO-LEPIDOPTERA. 



BY ARTHUR G. BUTLP^R, F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c. 



It is a truth whicli none will question, that no criticism of a 

 man's work (however severe or unmerited) is so distressing as the 

 ignoring of it altogether ; and the distress, such as it is, is still more 

 diminished when the critic bases his observations upon an unsound 

 foundation. 



When a man can say, as Mr. Meyrick cannot, that he has before 

 him, as he writes, the types, or even good ^figures, of several so-called 

 species, referred by their authors to different genera; and, that they 

 are specifically identical, his statements may be accepted, until proved 

 to be erroneous ; but when he makes such sweeping statements as that 

 respecting BJwdaria rohina, it may safely be concluded that he will 

 commit many errors through haste which he will afterwards regret : 

 I will not then repeat this error by asserting that R. rolina is not 

 one or both of Guenee's species referred to Endotricha, since I have 

 neither of that author's types before me, but I will positively main- 

 tain that it is neither generically nor specifically identical with any 

 Endotricha known to me, nor with the Pyralis stilhealis and. P. dociU- 

 salis, of Walker ; I will further observe that I do not believe the last 

 two to be varieties of the same species ; although on this point I <im 

 open to conviction if Mr. Meyrick can show me a series of examples 

 linking them together : on the other hand. Walker's species are refer- 

 able to his genus Doththa, which appears to be congeneric with 

 Endotricha {E.Jlammealis) ; and, therefore, on this head, as in aU hut 

 one of my notes on synonymy, I am able to agree with Mr. Meyrick : 

 whether he is right in stating that Rhodaria, Guen., is not separable 

 from Botys will depend entirely upon what he regards as the type of 

 the latter genus, a point which, at present, I have not the time to 

 enter into. 



I admit that T was over-hasty fin my paper in the Annals) in con- 



