169 



be collected and republished in a permanent form. Such a work 

 would be hailed with joy by entomologists throughout the world. It 

 is understood that Dr. Leconte's magnificent collection of ("^oleoptera, 

 so precious for the number of types it contains, has been bequeatlied 

 by him to to the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge. The 

 many who loved him and sorrow for his loss, may find consolation in 

 the spectacle which he presents of a life well rounded, without re- 

 proach, honest, true and generous in all its details, and filled with de- 

 votion to whatever end was before him, of one who lived his allotted 

 time without an enemy, and who passes to his rest with the affection- 



H. E. 



COMMENTS ON A PAPER ENTITLED "THE GENUS COLIAS,' 

 FROM PROC. BOST. SOC, N. H., VOL. XXII. 



By W. H. Edwards. 



In Papilio III, March, 1883, I replied to Dr. Hagen's first paper, 

 " Portion of a preliminary report on the Butterflies of Washn. Terr.," 

 and proved that he was altogether at fault with regard to P. Zolicaon 

 and Oregonia; that they were not varieties of P. Machaon or of each 

 other, and that Zolicaon did not even bejong to the same sub-group 

 with Machaon. I had said enough about the distinctness of P. Rutiilus 

 from P. Turnus, also claimed by Dr. Hagen to be varieties of one spe- 

 cies, in a previous paper, which appeared in the January No. of same 

 volume of Papilio, and am prepared to-day to demonstrate from the 

 larval stages that these two species are distinct, as I have bred larvae 

 of Rutulus from the ^g^ on a pretty large scale the past snmmer. But 

 as I shall devote two Plates in Part XII. But. N. A. to Rutulus, I need 

 say nothing here of that species. 



The argument in this Colias paper follows the same line as that laid 

 down in the Machaon paper spoken of; namely, that where two or more 

 forms, called species by some authors, show resemblances, where one 

 or more characters are common to them all, these so-called species are 

 really but one species. Whether each is permanent to-day, breeding 

 true to its own type, so far as there is knowledge of it, wholly dissevered 

 from its next ally in the series, does not enter into the estimate. 

 Whether there are larval differences is a matter of no consequence; if 

 there is resemblance, it shows not community of origin, that being 

 ignored altogether, but derivation. One of these forms is assumed 

 to be derived from the other, and if there be several, all are derived 

 from one. The derivation can in no instance be proved, and in some 

 cases presupposes a state of things which not only does not ex- 

 ist, but in all probability never can hav/e existed. All the same, re- 

 semblance is identity. In this way, what other naturalists call a sub- 

 group, a group or a genus, resolves itself i.nto one species and its de- 



