298 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



p. 1) from which he misquotes {ante, p. 254) are most ungenerous. 

 I have nowhere stated that I had cognisance of, or that I even 

 expected to be conversant with, the entire sclieme of variation 

 obtaining among such insects as Lyccena icarus, L. bellargus and 

 L. corydon. Throughout my notes I especially referred to and 

 dealt with the more constant varietal phases, and this fact must 

 be patent to all who may have perused my observations in an 

 impartial spirit. 



Here is the entire passage from which Mr. Briggs has mis- 

 quoted : — "My object, however, was not so much the acquisition of 

 extraordinary forms as a desire to obtain a knowledge, as far as 

 this was practicable, of the whole range in the variation of these 

 species in particular South of England localities." If my 

 ambition had been solely the acquisition of extreme forms, I 

 probably could have obtained such examples through the same 

 channels as do those collectors who spend years, and not a little 

 cash, in amassing row after row of curious forms. I preferred, 

 however, to examine numbers of the specimens in their native 

 haunts, and select those which suited my purpose. In this way I 

 maintain that I did ascertain, as far as it was possible for me to 

 do, the whole range of variation in Lyccena corydon at Ventnor 

 and Eastbourne. 



I must also point out that by the substitution of the word 

 "some" for "many" Mr. Briggs is misleading. Both words 

 certainly express an indeterminate number, but " many " has 

 greater numerical value than "some." I wrote {ante p. 1), "I 

 have myself given many hours to the examination," &c. 



I have perhaps given to this part of Mr. Briggs' paper more 

 consideration than it really deserves, but I think I detect therein 

 the true purpose of his contribution to the discussion on Mr. 

 Sabine's varieties, &c. 



As regards a common ancestry for Polyommatns phlceas, 

 Lyccena icarus, and Thecla ruhi, I am afraid that I cannot add 

 much that would tend to render the suggestion less objectionable 

 to Mr. Briggs. I do not know whether Mr. Briggs is a disciple 

 of the special creation theory, but from his remarks {ante, p. 254) 

 I cannot suppose that he favours evolution. Therefore, as I am 

 distinctly an evolutionist, it is possible that we regard the 

 matter in dispute from antagonistic standpoints. My return to 

 the ancient biological creed is not probable, but if Mr. Briggs 



