262 
already stated, constitutes the nucleus of the species, whilst other 
forms are described as distinct varieties, namely (y) inops (Leba- 
non, Kotschy), (6) consobrina (Beirut and Lebanon, Kotschy), (£) 
brachybalanos (Beirut, Carmel, etc., Kotschy, Bove, Gaillardot), 
and («) pachybalanos (Carmel, Tabor, Gaillardot). To judge by the 
authentic specimens of those varieties which I have seen, | can 
see in them nothing but unstable fluctuations or races not worthy 
of being distinguished at present. For practical and especially 
economical purposes, at any rate, they may be safely considered 
as a specific unit, which, under the existing rules of nomenclature, 
would have to be given the name Q. calliprinos. De Candolle’s 
account of Q. calliprinos implies a considerable extension of the 
species beyond Syria and Palestine, through the Taurus and 
Western Asia Minor to Constantinople, and to Cyprus, Crete, and 
the island of Zanthe; but from the material I have been able to 
examine I am inclined to restrict the area in its western and north- 
0. 397 is laid out very amply and is undoubtedly Q. calliprinos 
Neither specimen corres- 
ponds exactly to Kotschy’s figure of Q. Fenzlii. 
Kotschy, in his book 
enumerates Q. Fenzlit on p. 381 as occurring “ in collibus cretaceis, 
1s zu 2000,’’ and on p. 369 he says that it descends in the hill 
r, as the label says, but F 
| kel Soci, ys, but on August 24 and 25, and no 
Yet Q. calliprinos was 
