258 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



development to be quite equal to that between our own A. selene 

 and A. eiiphrosync, especially that of L. icariis, with either 

 L. bellargus or L. corydon. I believe the two latter are less 

 highly specialised, or separate from each other, but still 

 sufficiently so to answer all the general purposes and fulfil the 

 special functions which species are supposed to possess iiiter se. 

 If we are to accept Mr. South 's view as correct and apply our 

 connecting-links to an almost indefinite extent, I am afraid we 

 shall have but few species ; and as he himself has stated that 

 L. icarus, Polyommatus phlceas, and Thecla ruhi are descended 

 probably from a common ancestor, why should we not, proceeding 

 on the above lines, call the common ancestor a species, and 

 treat all and each of its descendants as varieties or aberrations ? 

 Of course this is extreme, but it should be the result on general 

 grounds. We must be very careful, when we find apparent 

 connecting-links, how we do away with the specific claims of 

 forms which are as highly specialised and distinct in them- 

 selves as they possibly can be, so far as we are able to judge. 



Holding the view therefore that corydon, bellargus, and icarus 

 are distinct as species, — and I believe this view is still held by a 

 great majority of entomologists, — I consider that Mr. South's 

 use of the term " mongrel " and my use of the term " hybrid " 

 synonymous, both being used as the offspring of a union of 

 what we generally consider distinct species. Mr. South's idea 

 of " mongrelisation " in this matter corresponds exactly with my 

 idea of "hybridisation." Mr. South may say that he has never 

 stated they are not " species," but I maintain that if they are 

 not " pure species " they are only aberrations, and not species 

 at all. 



I am sorry the paragraph (Entom. 208) was not more 

 explicit. It referred in a general way to Mr. South's idea of 

 " crossing," but it was directed almost entirely so as to bear on 

 Mr. Sabine's statement (p. 181) that "most probably" his 

 varieties "were hybrids, and if so unions between the two 

 species must be a tolerably common event here." I should be 

 sorry to lay to Mr. South's account the charge of believing in 

 " wholesale hybridisation in nature," and I am pleased that 

 Mr. South agrees with me in this matter, and considers that 

 I am justified in characterising such " wholesale hybridisation " 

 as "more than improbable." It adds a great deal to the value 



