72 Mr. BuTLEi; on Jfr. Meyriclc's views of certain 



On page 51 Mr. Meyrick contradicts a statement, previously 

 made by Limself apparently, as to the affinity of Tortrix 

 charactana^ originally described by him as a Cacoecia, and 

 which he now says " has no affinity with ohUcpiana^ Walk., as 

 suggested," and on page 55 are two species described by this 

 author, in the same paper, as belonging to different genera, but 

 which he now refers to the sime genus. Surely these instances 

 are a sufficient proof of the possibility of growth of knowledge 

 in the human mind. 



My views of the synonomy of Pcedisca ohliquana are that 

 Teras ohliquana, Walk., is allied to, but distinct from, 7'. spiir- 

 catana, and that S.Japhila transtrigana and turhulentana are 

 varieties of the latter; also that Teras congestana is identical 

 with T. cnneifernna, but distinct from the foregoing species; 

 I also hold, as regards the sytionymv of Stepsiceros ejectana, 

 that S. ejectana, servlJisann, and sa.rana are identical, l>ut that 

 S. absconditana and Conchi/lis ligniferaiia are distinct ; and 

 these opinions of mine 1 hold to be of equal value to those 

 of any man, l)e he specialist or not, who has no actual proofs 

 to guide him in his decisions, and particularly in the case of one 

 who so often contradicts himself as my critic. 



When i\lr. Meyrick was lust in England, he Ijrought his 

 collection to the British Museum for comparison with Walker's 

 and my types; and, since that time, he has not ceased attacking 

 us both, in every paper that he has published, with a vigour 

 worthy of a better cause: rmtil recently, I took no notice what- 

 ever of these attacks, but at length they have become so personal 

 in their character that, inasmuch as Meyrick is now generally 

 regarded as a trustwortliy exponent of the Micro-Lepidoptera, 

 I feel called upon to add to the above a few facts tending to 

 show that his testimony is not alwa3's to be accepted without 

 due consideration. 



First, as regards tlie character of Meyrick's descriptions, their 

 language seems to me to be vague, not to say obscure, such 

 terms as '' forewings posteriorly dilated," " abdomen moderate," 

 are constantly used, with many others equally perplexing, 

 whilst the colours described are sucli as to convey no meaning 

 " whitish-ochreous-grey ■' and " j)ale dull greyish crimson" 



