" TYPKS " IN NATLItAL lUSTOKY. 231 



Fkmales. 



1. ?, Smaller; nieso- and metathorax granulated ; 



all femora unarmed ; apical part of abdomen 



(segments 8, 9, 10) hardened, punctulated, keeled 



above, convex as seen from side ; anal segment 



cucullate and spatliiforni, and pointed .. .. 1. hispanica, Bolivar. 



1.1. f . Smaller, more slender; meso- and metathorax 

 smooth above ; middle and hinder femora denti- 

 culate at the apex beneath or unarmed ; last 

 dorsal segments strongly attenuated, not hardened 

 nor punctated ; anal segment as in BaciUus, 

 rounded at apex .. .. .. .. ..2. attenuata, Pantel. 



1. Leptynia hispanica, Bolivar. 



Length of body, 35mm. -39mm. <? , 48mra.-58mm. V ; of antenn*, 

 6mm. ^ , 3-2mm.-3"5mm. ? ; of mesonotum, 6'8mm.-7*5mm. S , 

 7*9mm.-10mm. 5 ; of posterior femora, 13mm. -14mm. S , Hmm.- 

 13mm. 2 • 



A native of northern and central Spain. 



2. Leptynia attenuata, Pantel. 



Length of body, 42mm. -50mm. J , 48mni.-60mm. '^ ; of antennfe, 

 5*8mm.-6mm. J , 3'8mm.-4-8mm. 2 ; of mesonotum, 8"5mm.-9mm. c? , 

 9'5mm.-9"9mm. 5 ; of posterior femora, 15'5mm.-18mm. J , 13mm.- 

 17mm. 2 ■ 



Occurs in Portugal at iSan Fiel, and in Spain at Talavera, Cepeda. 

 south of Salamanca, and Urda above Toledo. 



{Tu be continued.) 



" Types " in Natural History. 



By GEORGE WHEELEK, M.A. 

 (Concluded from p. 202.) 



In the " Revision of the Sphingides " an importance is assigned to 

 the first individual, or individuals, of a species known to science in 

 respect of nomenclature, which none of the later discovered specimens 

 can acquire, and this position appears to be approved by Dr. Chapman. 

 I maintain that such an importance is wholly fictitious and arbitrary, 

 and because fictitious and arbitrary, therefore unscientific, that is, it 

 is grounded on convention and not on knowledge of the species. Of 

 course, if stability of nomenclature is the be-all and end-all of science 

 to which everything else has to give way, one understands the necessity 

 for doing violence unutterable to grammar and orthography, and the 

 all-importance of the "literary type," but then we get back to the 

 original question, why have a classification at all ? Why not be 

 content with a single name with which to label our cabinet specimens ? 

 On the other hand, if there are other considerations more import- 

 ant, which the invaluable work done by Dr. Chapman, Mr. Prout 

 and the authors of the " Revision " shows at a glance that they 

 would be the first to concede, why should we be expected to act 

 as if we thought this consideration came first ? Why should we cast 

 aside the most elementary rules of grammar and the universally 

 recognised forms of classical orthography ? Why, above all, should 

 we not be content to allow our specific nomenclature to change with 

 the growth of our knowledge of individual species, just as we have all 

 agreed to let our generic nomenclature change as our knowledge of 



