222 [November, 



ON THE SYNONYMY OF CERTAIN IflCSO-LEFIDOFTEEA. 



BY E. METEICK, B.A. 



Just before leaving New Zealand, in August, for a flying visit to 

 England, I received Mr. A. G. Butler's published reply to my cor- 

 rections of his determinations (see ante, pp. 14, 15). As he accuses 

 me of writing without any sound foundation, I ask leave to give the 

 grounds for those conclusions M'hieh he disputes. 



Before doing so, I take decided objection to the assumption that 

 we are not justified in identifying descriptions as synonymous without 

 reference to the original types. If this were so, descriptions would 

 be superfluous. It would, in my judgment, be more correct to assert 

 that we are not justified in identifying an insect from the type, which 

 is liable to be misplaced, and cannot be published, but that the descrip- 

 tion is the only reliable authority ; if unidentifiable, it should be 

 quashed. That the author of a synonym should have referred his 

 type to a different genus from that to which the species truly belongs, 

 is only of importance in proportion as we can only rely upon his 

 accuracy of investigation. 



Eespecting Bhodaria rohina, Butl., I consider the description 

 fairly agrees with the insect to which I attributed it, and is not 

 capable of being referred to any other of the 200 species of Pyrales 

 which I possess from Eastern Australia. Further, I had examined 

 previously the whole collection of Dr. Lucas, who sent the specimens 

 to Mr. Butler ; it contains extremely few true Pyrales, all well known 

 to me (these are comparatively scarce in the more southern latitudes, 

 where he collects, but are abundant in the north), but this species is 

 one, and was among those he sent to Mr. Butler, nor was there any 

 other at all near it. Gruenee's descriptions of Endotricha pyrosalis 

 and E. ignealis are decidedly good, and both undoubtedly referable to 

 this species, in my opinion ; it varies considerably, and may well have 

 been described twice. Walker's descriptions of Pyralis stilhealis (!) 

 and P. docilisalis (!) are not, in my judgment, identifiable, but I saw 

 the types in the Bi'itish Museum, and considered them identical with 

 this species, of which I had specimens with me at the time for com- 

 parison ; both are females, the sexes differing superficially, and I 

 noted especially that no male existed in the collection under aiiy name. 

 Einally, I am well acquainted with the species and its limits of varia- 

 tion, having seen probably thousands of specimens, as it is common 

 and widely disti'ibutcd ; and those which I have called ^ and ? are 

 certainly sexes of the one species. This is, without doubt, a tx'ue 



