154 



carboiiea 700. A. praticola 567. A. vitta and A. aquiliana 533-53. A. 

 ru?-is 416. 



Herrich Schaffer. — A. adufiibrata 121. A. rustica 495. A.formosa 

 526. A. tritici ^21-^2. A. obe/isca ^^9-53- 



Of these are 15 forms which were supposed by two of the highest au- 

 thorities on European lepidoptera to be good species and which 

 are arranged as follows by Dr. Staudinger: 



A. nigricans Linn = fumosa Hb. i53 = rustica H. S. 526 = carbonea 

 Hb. 700, var. lubricans Esp. = rustica Hs. 495. 



A. triticiWvLXs., H.S. 104 529-3o=var. vitta H.S. 103 527-8; var. eruta 

 4 Hb. 623 = tritici H.S. 527-8; var. aquilina Hb. 135 — fictilis Hb. 79 

 — praticola Hb. 567. 



A. vitta Hb. 533-4. 



A. obelisca Hb. 123; H. S. 103 529-30; ab. ruris Hb. 416; var. Viller- 

 sii Gn. — obelisca H. S. 532 — fictilis Hb. 710. 



A. adumbrata Ev. H. S. 121. 

 thus reducing the 15 supposed species to 5; every one was according, 

 to Dr. Rossler (who, no doubt, has the specimens to prove his state- 

 ment), not only bred in one season in one locality, but so much united 

 by transition forms, that to use his own words " it cannot be otherwise 

 than that they all belong to one and the same species." 



As this species occurs in North America, and is no doubt just as 

 likely to vary there as in Europe, the synonomy of the former will be 

 a pretty little amusement for a future generation of naturalists, and I 

 have no doubt they will not bless their predecessors; but how would the 

 case have stood if instead of publishing good figures, as Hubner and 

 Herrich Schaffer did, only descriptions had been given. To ignore 

 the names would have been the only safe course, and I feel sure that 

 many names already given, if not identified during the life of their 

 authors and with their help, will certainly be ignored by their suc- 

 cessors. 



As to Mr. Butler's remarks about Terias, he no doubt feels hurt that 

 his Japanese species, which may be judged of from the plate in Trans. 

 Ent. Soc. Lond., 1882, p. 197-9, should be so soon attacked by the only 

 man really able to do so at present, namely, Mr. Pryer; but how much 

 better would it have been for him and others if he had adhered to the 

 principles expressed by himself in his Revision of the Genera of Pierinos 

 Proc. Zool. Soc, London, 1881, page 5 26, where he says, in speaking of 

 Terias/'I shall not therefore increase the difficulty of determining the al- 

 ready numerous and nearly allied species by describing all the unnamed 

 forms at my disposal, but shall rather strive to lighten the labors of my 

 fellow-workers by clearing up to the best of my ability the somewhat 

 confused synonomy already existing." 



In conclusion I must say that I look forward with the greatest in- 

 terest to Dr. Hagen's promised remarks on the species of Colias and 

 other genera, and beg to assure him that however much hostile criticism 

 he may draw from some persons, he will deserve the hearty thanks of 

 all who, like myself, are anxious to see the study of Lepidoptera put on 



