26 



THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



ON NAMING GEOGEAPHICAL VARIETIES. 

 By H. J. Elwes, F.L.S., F.E.S., &c. 



Mk. Harcourt-Bath {ante, p. 15) asks me to state my views 

 on this subject, as he thinks that the names he suggested for 

 supi30sed forms of Parnassins apollo, in ' Entomologist,' 1896, 

 p. 331, are "of more importance in their relation to the type 

 than the forms of many other species of European Ehopalocera" 

 he "could name which have already received distinctive recogni- 

 tion." It is quite impossible to lay down any hard and fast rule 

 on this subject. In every case as it arises one must be guided by 

 experience, and especially by the amount and character of the 

 variation which occurs. In some very wide-ranging species, as 

 Vanessa cardui or V. antiopa, no one has hitherto thought it 

 worth while to separate supposed geographical varieties, though, 

 as shown by Mr. Kirby's recent note (Entom. xxix. p. 318), it 

 might be done by those who wish to multiply such names as 

 much as possible. Other species, such as Melitaa dklyma and 

 M. jjhcehe, show such comparatively constant local variations in 

 certain districts that it is perfectly possible for anyone having a 

 sufficient knowledge of their variations to say where a very large 

 proportion of the specimens have come from ; but, in order to do 

 this, one must have such a collection as, I am sorry to say, is 

 hardly to be found in England at present. 



The experience which I have gained during many years of 

 collecting in Europe, Asia, and America, and a personal know- 

 ledge of the best collections of Lepidoptera in Europe and the 

 United States, inclines me to think that the larger the series of 

 varieties one examines from many different localities and the 

 greater the knowledge one acquires of them, the more difficult it 

 becomes to define local races accurately. And this applies to 

 birds and plants as much as to Lepidoptera. It is the local 

 collectors who are always most in favour of named local 

 varieties ; and though Dr. Staudinger's collection, which 

 perhaps is unequalled for its richness in local varieties by any 

 other collection of natural-history specimens in the world, may 

 be cited in opposition to my opinion, yet I have often found that 

 his personal inclination is against the undue multiplication of 

 varietal names, and that he is as ready as anyone to admit that 

 local races are often impossible of exact definition. 



I will now proceed to deal with these particular forms about 

 which I think Mr. Harcourt-Bath is wrong. First of all, there 

 is no reason why he should take "the prevailing form found in 

 the alps" as the type of P. apnllo because Linnaeus described 

 the species, presumably from specimens of his own country, and, 

 if so, the form named by Mr. Harcourt-Bath scand'mavica would 



