62 



it would be absurd to require a figure to illustrate some feature 

 of differentiation which would quite easily be recorded in words. 

 Summary and conclusion (cf. Vol, II., p. i66). 



Discussion. 



Considerable interest was taken in the question brought 

 forward by M. Charles Oberthur. 



Alfred Sich said that in his opinion a description was of far 

 greater value than even an excellent figure. If we had the 

 figures of two closely allied species before us, we might be unable 

 to discover the very slight points of difference, which a few lines 

 of description would be sufficient to point out. Even if the pro- 

 position were brought forward as a law, how could we compel 

 the observance of such a law ? 



Walter Rothschild would have been willing to support a 

 motion for the desirability of each description being accompanied 

 by a coloured picture, a photograph, or a drawing of the essential 

 differences, but must oppose the proposition that the validity 

 of a name be made dependent on the description being accom- 

 panied by a figure. It would certainly lead to a deterioration in 

 the accuracy of the descriptions, and breed great mischief. 



Ed. Everts. — In the Coleóptera it was often quite impossible 

 to give sufficiently accurate figures supplementing the descrip- 

 tions. A large proportion of the small Staphylinidœ, for instance, 

 could only be recognised from good descriptions ; figures of 

 Homalota and Stenus, e.g., were quite valueless. In the case of 

 Lepidoptera, the pattern appeared as a kind of tapestry, and 

 could often easily be copied in colour. We should therefore 

 demand (i) a good description, and (2) figures where possible 

 and necessary. 



G. B. LoNGSTAFF stated that M. Oberthür's proposal was 

 as charming as the language in which he advocated it, but that 

 he had often found it impossible, even in the case of the larger 

 Lepidoptera, to distinguish good specimens of allied species 

 in the cabinet without the aid of descriptions. 



E. M. Dadd. — Figures were a great help in the identification 

 of butterflies and the larger moths, but, unless considerably 

 enlarged and very carefully drawn, were absolutely useless in 



