6 THE entomologist's RECORD. 



being recorded by the constant use for a hundred years of the name 

 he gave, to wipe it out altogether by the mistaken and pedantic 

 application of an otherwise sound rule, is nothing less than an 

 unpardonable piece of vandalism. If Sphina; is the genus of ocellata, 

 how does the subfamily come to be Anihiilicinar and that containing 

 li<li(stri, Sphhu/icae. Dilojihonota is the most characteristic name in 

 the tribe of Pseudosphinf/idae. But the revision drops it as synonymic. 

 How, then, does the tribe become Dilophonoticae ' And if so, why 

 may not the subfamily containing ocellata, if it be not Sphiniiinae, 

 continue to be Smerinthinae .' No doubt the Revision follows some law 

 of priority herein, but in the varying contents of the groups and the 

 varying values given to genera, the way in which it is applied seems 

 more chaotic than luminous. 



In so far as classification is a matter of nomenclature, we have 

 sufficiently discussed this section of these volumes, and so far as it 

 deals with questions of facts as to what are species and what are 

 subspecies, etc., we see very little that has not been set out by our 

 authors and others before. We must again demur to their statement 

 that : " (T('o(iraj)Iiical variation leads to a in ulti plication of the species : 

 non-ijeoiiraphicul variation at the hiijhest to poli/morphisin.'' When they 

 say that isolation leads to divergence to specific rank, we agree 

 thoroughly, and that it is impossible — or, at least, not proved to be 

 possible — without ; but there are many sorts of isolation besides the 

 geographical. We are not prepared to assert without fear of contradic- 

 tion that Tephrosia crepmcularia and T. bistortata are " good " species ; 

 but whether they are or not, they are becoming (or have become) so 

 by an isolation that is not geographical. We entertain little doubt 

 that Anijihidasi/.s bctnlaria and A. strataria became distinct by a 

 similar seasonal isolation, the tendency to seasonal divergence having, 

 perhaps, been initiated by a food divergence. The genus Anthrocera 

 (Zi/ijaena) is difhcult to understand in several directions, unless we 

 assume the existence of seasonal subspecies. This is, of course, an 

 important point ; still it is small in comparison with the remainder of 

 this portion of the essay. 



As to the limits of species, they have some good remarks on 

 " lumpers " and " splitters," finding good points in the methods of 

 each, as well as something to object to. " It is the lack of discrimina- 

 tion which prevents either extremist from finding the right path. 

 However, the work of the splitter has a great advantage over that of 

 the lumper. The difterences which he points out betw^een the animals 

 are there. In the statements of facts he is correct, but he errs in the 

 interpretation of these differences. His sight is keen — his reasoning 

 less so. The lumper, on the other hand, does not perceive these 

 diiferences, or he perceives them only in a hazy way. He puts them 

 down as insignificant and passes on, halting only if there is a con- 

 spicuous quantity of difterence which impresses itself on his mind. 

 His eye and reasoning are on the same level, and his work is generally 

 scamped." Our authors are lumpers in their tendency to regard many 

 forms as merely subspecies that are often accorded specific rank, 

 whilst they display all the acumen and close observation of the 

 splitter. A certain ambiguity certainly attends their declarations as 

 to species and subspecies. A species can only be formed by geographical 

 isolation, but geographical forms are merely subspecies, not distinct 



