SEASONAL POLYMORPHISM. 



157 



British ones; we all deeply regret that death cat short, in 1911, the 

 task he had began in 1905. Also Charles Oberthiir is one of the 

 pioneers of the modern method of working out variation, in a work to which 

 he gave the very appropriate name of " Ktuden de Lepidopteinloijie Com- 

 paree,'' adopting it as the title of a long series of magnificent volumes. 

 He has been one of the first to look up original descriptions in many 

 doubtful cases. Unfortunately, however, he sometmies neglected the 

 right of priority and used the name to which a good figure or a good 

 description allowed him to refer more exactly, in preference to the 

 name first published. This view may or may not be accepted, but, 

 anyhow, it does not diminish the importance and value of this splendid 

 work, which leaves one in amazement, when one considers the short 

 period of time in which it has been written. In some instances one 

 regrets that its author should not have made use more fully of the 

 enormous materials he has collected, by working out geographical 

 variation more thoroughly. One often finds evidence that he had 

 made some interesting observation in this sense, but he drops it, 

 without defining it, and fixes it too rarely by a name, making it a 

 point not to follow " I'ecole de Fruhstorfer," as he puts it. Notwith- 

 standing, his descriptions of variation on broad lines and of the 

 distribution of those races which he does consider, constitute a clearer 

 and more complete study of many subjects than any author has as yet 

 produced. 



The writings of the late H. Frilhstorfer stand quite opposite to 

 those of Oberthiir, unfortunately also by the form in which they are 

 published ! He has followed the method of describing and naming, 

 with no hesitation, every race which differed from those already 

 known. It is several years since I came to the conclusion that this is 

 decidedly the right method and that it gives excellent results. I 

 cannot enter into a discussion of this long debated question here, but 

 I must state my view. Facts clearly show anyone who devotes a little 

 attention to this subject that it is the most natural development of the 

 study of variation and that the results already achieved are of the 

 greatest interest. The chief objection made to it, that it is a hopeless 

 task, with no end or aim, is already obviously seen to have been 

 an entirely mistaken anticipation. The geographical variations of 

 most European species have been found to be very limited and to 

 follow one simple line. Those which in reality vary to a disconcerting 

 extent can be counted on one's finger-tips and it is only a question of 

 energy and time to work them out ; of this sort are Flebdiis aryus, L., 

 Pieris na/n, L., Faniassiii>i apolla, L., and P. »ine))ioi<yne, L., Melanargia 

 galathea, L., Satyrus statiliniis, Ilufn., Melitaea didyiiia, Esp., etc. 

 "What was quite wrong in Friihstorfer, was the way he published a 

 great many utterly insufficient descriptions, not taking the trouble to 

 compare his new race with those already known, which stood nearest 

 to it, so as to establish well its position amongst them and so as to 

 convey a clear idea of it. He often gives one the impression of having 

 said to himself : " By stating the locality I make sure of the priority 

 of my name. Why trouble any more about it ? Let those who want 

 to know what it looks like procure specimens from there." This habit 

 of leaving the work to others, and the toilsome task of having to look 

 up Friihstorfer's few words of description scattered in innumerable 

 journals, with the danger of one of them, which had escaped one's 



