75 



NOTES ON LUPERINA GUENEEI, Dbld. 

 By Eustace R. Bankes, M.A., F.E.S. 



In the course of his interesting paper on "Luperinariueneei, Dbh, 

 and var. baxteri, var. nov.," pubHshed in Entom. xHi., 289-292 

 (1909), Mr. Richard South says, p. 290, that the National Collection 

 includes " a female type " of giieueei, and that " a co-type " of it 

 passed from the Mason collection into mine. Seeing, however, 

 that Doubleday's original description in Ent. Ann., 1864, pp. 

 123-124, was made from these two individuals, one being of each 

 sex, it follows by the ' Merton Rules,' p. 13, Rule 38 (1896), that 

 together they constitute the " type," my example being the type 

 male, while that in the National Collection is the type female. 

 The term "co-type" is reserved by the authors of these Rules 

 for use in cases where the description has been made either from 

 two individuals, both of which represent the same sex, or from 

 more than two units. At the dispersal of the Burney collection 

 in 1893, the type male, as well as the type female, was purchased 

 by Mr. 0. E. Janson, who, in answer to my inquiries, informs me 

 that he sent the former to the late Mr. P. B. Mason, and the 

 latter to the Trustees of the British Museum, on whose behalf it 

 had been secured. Barrett is, therefore, in error in stating 

 [Lep. Brit. IsL, iv. 335 (1897)] that, after the death of the Rev. 

 H. Burney, both specimens passed into the collection of " Dr. 

 P. B. Mason,"* and that the latter gentleman deposited one of 

 them in the National Collection. I have carefully compared 

 these individuals with one another, and also with several of 

 those taken in Lancashire, during the past season, by Messrs. 

 T. Baxter and W. Yates, and all are certainly conspecific. 



Since Mr. South (loc. cit.) reproduces Hodgkinson's note 

 [Entom. xviii., 54 (1885)] , in which the writer gives the date of 

 his purchase — and, by implication, of the capture — of the two 

 gueneei that went into the Burney collection, as "1860 or 

 1861," it may be as well to mention that the precise year in 

 which these, and the other original specimen, that was sent to 

 Miss Sulivan, were secured, is somewhat uncertain. In Ent. 

 Ann., 1864, p. 123, Doubleday definitely states that they were 

 taken "in the autumn of 1862," and Barrett, in Lep. Brit. Isl., 

 iv., 335 (1897), follows him as regards the year, though he 

 informs us that they were captured " in August," which is not 

 one of the autumn months. Miss Sulivan, however, writing 

 recently to Sir George F. Hampson, says that her collection still 



+ Mr. P. B. Mason, M.R.C.S., although no less distinguished as a phy- 

 sician than as a surgeon, and popularly known as " Dr. Mason," did not 

 receive the degree of " M.D.," and consequentlj' never assumed the title of 

 " Doctor."— E. R. B. 



G 2 



