(65) 



Cdvcrrning 3fr. E. Meyiiclcs views of certain Neiv Zealand 

 and Australian forni.-'^ of LEriDOPTERA ; by Ara'uuii G. 

 Butler, F.L.S., F.Z.S., &c. 



In an article read before the Philosopliical Institute vi 

 Canterbury, New Zealand, on the 4th May, 1882 (a C()i)y of 

 Avhirh has kindly been forwarded to me by the author), Mr. 

 !Meyrick has turned his attention to the Crarnbida' and Tortricidoi 

 of New Zealand; unfortunately, as a considerable number of 

 "Walker's types are unrecognized by him, there can be little 

 doubt that some of his new species will have to fall before them; 

 for, although his statement on page 67 that '' the remaining 

 descriptions of Walker, not quoted here, are all unidentifiable in 

 themselves, and imrecognizable from the loss or original bad 

 condition of the types," may be accepted as final by Lepidop- 

 terists in New Zealand, it will not hinder students in Eurojie 

 who have access to the British Museum collection from accepting 

 Walker's names in preference to Meyrick's. 



In the second place it is hardly conceivable that the multi- 

 form variation ascribed in this paper to many of the known 

 species can be explained by any other supposition than that 

 Mr. Meyi'ick, during his sojourn in London, had not sufficient 

 time to note all the forms in the Museum collection so accurately 

 as to prevent his wrongly identifying them after the lapse of 

 years. 



For an author thus standing upon unsafe ground, boldly to 

 attack every writer upon the Lepjidoptera of New Zealand, and, 

 so f;ir as concerns myself, without much i-egard for courtesy, 

 seems to me to bo unwise ; not only as confirming the assertion 

 made by some Naturalists that '' Lepidopterists as a rule are 

 illnatiired in their treatment of each other," but as rendering 

 his errors, which according to his own admission are by no 

 means light ones, the less likely to be i)asscd over without 

 comment. 



ClSni.A Kn TOMOLlXJlCA, 

 25th February, 1SS4. 



