A REPLY TO MR. BRIGGS. 297 



group, but relative to the ancestral form I wrote (ante p. 124), 

 " I should suppose that both sexes of the original stock, from 

 whicli several species of Lyccsna, including those with which we 

 are chiefly concerned, have descended, were dark brown or 

 blackish on the upper surface," &c. 



Of the species of Lyccena most intimatelj^ connected by com- 

 munity of descent I should instance eumedon or astrarchc v. 

 artaxerxes as examples retaining more or less of the origiiuil 

 character of a common progenitor, but neither of these species 

 directl}^ belong to the particular group I have had under con- 

 sideration. 



T still maintain the blue-black form among Mr. Sabine's 

 varieties to be an instance of reversion. If the " pale varieties " 

 were " decided cases of atavism," as Mr. Tutt would seem to 

 regard them, and if these varieties are as numerous as suggested, 

 then atavism must obtain among L- bellargus to a very con- 

 siderable extent in some parts of Kent. I cannot, however, give 

 in my adberence to reversion on a large scale any more than to 

 " wholesale hybridisation," as I do not consider there is any 

 reason to suppose either one or the other probable. If the 

 varieties in question are mongrels, as I believe them to be, the 

 result of an occasional intercrossing would suffice to keep up the 

 supply of these varieties. The offspring of a crossing between 

 cams and bellargus would, according to my views, be fertile, and, 

 whether pairing among themselves or with icarus or bellargus, the 

 mongrel characterwouldbe reproduced, to a greater extent, perhaps, 

 when the parents were both mongrels, and in a lesser degree when 

 the pairing was between mongrel and bellargus or icarus. 

 October 7th, 1887. 



A REPLY TO MR. BRIGGS. 



By Richard South, F.E.S. 



The critique by Mr. Charles A. Briggs (ante p. 353), on what 

 he facetiously styles the " Mongrel-Hybrid Theory," is rendered 

 nugatory by the writer's inordinate indulgence in unseemly 

 banter. 



Perhaps Mr. Briggs will hardly be surprised when I say that 

 I think his comments on the opening remarks of my note (ante, 



ENTOM. — NOV. 1887. 2n 



