156 THK entomologist's record. 



undergone considerable mental strain to fit existing descriptions 

 and figures to the specimens they had before them, but they evidently 

 could not admit they had discovered a novelty. As a consequence one 

 finds a wearisome uniformity in the literature of last century, the 

 same informations and the same names of " varieties " and " aberra- 

 tions," as all variations used to be called from the subspecies to the 

 monstrosity, are found repeated over and over again in all the texts 

 and in the lists of every sort of region ; the most usual variations, 

 which are to be met with anywhere, and which for this very reason 

 were better known and had received names, were those which local 

 writers invariably quoted, whereas variations peculiar to their sur- 

 roundings were not mentioned, because they could not place them in 

 the established classifications and they thus gave them no importance. 

 This is also another consequence of the way of collecting mentioned 

 above : an individual variation is clearly discernible even in a single 

 characteristic specimen, and if it happened to be one of those which 

 had struck the fancy of a writer of the past, so that it had received a 

 name amongst hundreds just as interesting, or even more so, which 

 had been neglected, the local entomologist carefully noted it. 

 Geographical variations were only taken into account in the past when 

 they were particularly prominent and constant. Unfortunately even 

 in these cases the literature of last century is overflowing with 

 incorrect statements and gross blunders, because such characters had 

 been described too vaguely (" larger," " smaller," " pattern more 

 extensive," " markings reduced "), with reference to a "type of the 

 species," which nobody knew, so that each collector conceived it 

 according to his own fancy : some took as typical any specimen 

 received from abroad and especially those sent from Germany by 

 Staudinger's firm, under the specific name ; others trusted to the 

 figures of the text-book they had at hand and which were most 

 misleading because their authors never stated, as a rule, the locality of 

 the specimens used for the figure they gave under the specific name. 

 All this is most distressing and it is disheartening to think that our 

 present efforts will, no doubt, produce the same impression on future 

 generations ! The complexity of nature is such that it seems to make 

 fun of our attempts to master it. Our onl}^ consolation is that it too 

 proceeds, step by step, from the simple to the complex, so that the 

 human brain, which is its most beautiful achievement, must follow 

 Mother Nature and build up its knowledge stone by stone, while every 

 man must remember that, though he may rise he still is very far from 

 the summit, that none will ever reach. To try and clear up the 

 entomological literature of the past and set it on firmer ground, so as 

 to put a stop to the increase of confusion, is not an easy task. We 

 must work our way back to the first origin of each name, establish it 

 strictly, according to the law of priority, read up original descriptions 

 carefully and thus establish definitely the typical race and form, as a 

 starting point for new descriptions. It is with this view that 

 Querci and I have undertaken the laborious task of looking up these 

 descriptions in connection with the names mentioned in the following 

 Catalogue, and we have thought it useful to note in each case the 

 locality of the typical specimens, for future reference. 



Tutt was the first man who seriously undertook to look up the 

 entire literature of the species he dealt with, notably some of the 



