172 



only because I happen to possess a very similar aberration, and 

 to have made a very close study of the group, that I have ven- 

 tured to decide definitely ; even in the latest edition of Stau- 

 dinger's Catalog the name is only cited with a query. If, how- 

 ever, venation had been known, or appreciated, by Hübner, a 

 very few words would have sufficed to establish his amniculata 

 with certainty ; for it is closely like alternata Müll, [sociata Bkh.), 

 but with the aréole double instead of single, and no other Euro- 

 pean species answers to this description. 



In this connection it is excusable, and indeed even necessary, 

 that we should examine M. Oberthür's own treatment of the 

 relative claims of good descriptions and good figures, particularly 

 in fase, v., pt. 2, of his Etudes de Lépidoptérologie Comparée, 

 where he has shown us that he has the courage of his convictions, 

 by ignoring many descriptions which even the veriest t\T0 would 

 pronounce adequate for determination ^ and figuring numbers of 

 well-known species under new names. Now a ver}' slight ex- 

 amination of the letterpress will show that quite a number of 

 these names are nothing more than " nom. cum fig." ^ and there- 

 fore would have no nomenclatural standing in the opinion of 

 the author of the Index Animalium, of my late friend Mr. G. W, 

 Kirkaldy the hemipterist, and of many other zoologists. I am 

 not prepared myself to take that extreme position, as the works 

 of Hübner and of Felder, etc., have been so unanimously ac- 

 cepted by lepidopterists, and am willing to submit to them as the 

 penalty for that superficiality of which I spoke in opening ; but 

 the fact that such nomina indescripta are here proves to the hilt 

 my contention that even the most zealous of lepidopterists is in 

 danger of lapses so soon as he begins to think that the recognition 

 of species depends upon figures. 



The loss to science is very great. Unless the monographer 

 possesses the species, or has access to the type, he is powerless 

 to place it, and it has to remain outside the pale of systematic 

 entomology until it is acquired. Even the best illustration, 



^ E.g., to cite one only, Brotis studiosa Dogn., Le Nat., 1891, p. 278 = 

 Hygrochroa (?) leonidavia Ob., Et. Lép. Comp., v. (2), 47, t. 92, f. 898. 



- Such is the case, i)iter alia, with seven in succession on page 43 — 

 gortyniaria, gorgyraria, gorgonearia, gorgosariu, gonnapeavia, peiropolisaria, 

 and schunkei. 



