176 



return. Most practical workers are agreed that every differenti- 

 able geographical race needs a name, and many also hold that 

 clearly defined and recurrent aberrations (particularly those 

 which suggest Mendelian segregation) should bear names likewise. 

 What conceivable purpose can be served by demanding a new 

 figure when there is a slight but definite difference which can be 

 most clearly indicated in words ? Supposing that the local race 

 of a well-known butterfly from a certain island is distinguished 

 by having " the spots of the outer row united into a band," must 

 we figure the species anew to prove our very plain and unmis- 

 takable words ? What an insult to intelligence ! 



Or take a polychromatic species like Minoa murinata Scop, 

 Shall we have one figure and one name, and be forbidden to 

 name the other colour-forms which we describe, unless we are 

 prepared to figure them ? Or must we figure all the colour-forms 

 in any case (whether we name them or not) before we can claim 

 to have adequately made known the species ? This species is in 

 more than one respect an ideal one to illustrate my argument. 

 Is a white figure of a black moth going to help us much \\dthout 

 letterpress ? On the other hand, Minoa murinata has no con- 

 gener in the Palœarctic Region, nor, so far as I know, in the 

 whole world. A simple generic diagnosis and a few words of 

 description of the coloration of the species (it has no markings) 

 would give absolute certainty of determination. And if I dis- 

 covered a snow-white race of it which demanded naming, I pro- 

 test that the best figure conceivable could not serve me better 

 than a few strokes of the pen — " Minoa murinata nivea, subsp. 

 nov. All the wings snow-white." A friend who is interested 

 in botany as well as in the Lepidoptera tells me that botanists 

 would think it absurd to be expected to illustrate every slight 

 variation which was distinguished by a name, and it is hard to 

 see why language should not be as effective in the hands of 

 lepidopterists as in the hands of botanists. 



In conclusion I would sum up very briefly the points which I 

 desire especially to emphasise. Figures are good and useful, and 

 their employment should be encouraged, if they can be regarded 

 as a part only, and a subordinate part, of descriptive work ; and 

 the figures should be of just that part or those parts — whether 

 palpus, leg, antenna, or whatever else — which best differentiate 



