57 



NOMENCLATURE— PHYLOGENY— SYNONYMY. 

 By J. W. Tutt, F.E.S. 



There are many interesting matters in the ' Entomologist ' 

 this month (No. 429, February) relating to the Phylogeny and 

 Synonymy of the Lepidoptera, of which the paper by Mr. South 

 on " The Nomenclature and Arrangement of British Butter- 

 flies " is not the least so. The arrangement of the British 

 butterflies, if original and not carried out on some previously 

 arranged list, as is generally the case (certainly so in some of the 

 works compared by Mr. South), includes, or rather illustrates, the 

 author's opinion of the phylogeny of the group. What we want 

 is not so much a comparison of authors' (? book-makers') opinions 

 on nomenclature, as a critical comparison, based, say, on the 

 Merton rules of nomenclature, and their application to the 

 names in use. This would give us at least a standard for our 

 few British butterflies. I am not aware that anyone except 

 Scudder, Kirby, and Grote have so studied our species, and most 

 of their differences should be easy of settlement. The list pub- 

 lished by Mr. South itself shows that, with the exception of 

 Erebia cethiops, Coenonympha tiphon, Polyommatus astrarche, P. 

 icarus, P. bellargus, Nomiades semiargus, Cupido minima, Syrich- 

 thus malvce, Thymelicus thaumas, and Carter ocephalus palcemon, 

 there are no points of issue as to specific names. The agreement 

 of Meyrick and Tutt (who at least have attempted to apply the 

 law of priority) in the case of Erebia cethiops, Coenonympha tipJion, 

 Polyommatus astrarche, P. icarus, P. bellargus, Nomiades semi- 

 argus, Cupido minima, Syrichthus malvce, Thymelicus thaumas 

 (which, by the by, has a much older synonym), and Carteroce- 

 phalus palcemon, in which they agree with the 'Entomologist' 

 list, throws the onus surely of proving their incorrectness on 

 Mr. Barrett (who disagrees with them), Mr. Newman's book* 

 being now nearly thirty years old, and certainly not to be in- 

 cluded fairly in Mr. South's title of being written by a " recent 

 author"; and the matter of whether minima or alsus, malvce or 

 alveolus, thaumas or linea, palcemon or paniscus should be applied 

 would surely not prove a very difficult subject of enquiry. 



It is in the matter of genera, however, that authors " run 

 amuck." I have already formulated my opinions in a paper 

 read before the South London Entomological Society in 1897, as 

 to what genera are, and on what data they should be based. 

 This paper has never been seriously criticised by any of the 

 authors who prefer to follow the old lists, and one can only sup- 

 pose that they have no objection to its principles, or are too lazy 



* In the List of British Butterflies (ante, p. 32) Newman was cited to 

 show that his arrangement did not differ in any material respect from that 

 of Meyrick, — B. S- 



