THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



No. 45.] SEPTEMBER, MDCCGLXVIL [Price 6d. 



Answer to Mr. Kirhfs Note in the July Number of the 

 ^Entomologist.^ By A. G. Butler, Esq., F.Z.S. 



There are several points in Mr. Kirby's criticism of my 

 "Remarks on Nomenclatm'e" (Entom. iii. 291) to which I 

 should wish again to call the attention of the readers of the 

 * Entomologist.' 



First, he states that Erebia Tissi phone and glacialis of 

 Esper are noted by Staudinger as varieties of E. Alecto of 

 Hiibner : clearly Mr. Kirby has not fallen into the same 

 error, for it must surely be one, seeing that this species must 

 in such case have come into being nearly thirty years after 

 its varieties : moreover, I do not for one moment believe that 

 Esper's figures of the two insects represent one species ; 

 I consider Tissiphone is the butterfly which was subse- 

 quently figured by Hiibner under the name of coecilia, 

 which last is certainly not the coecilia of Esper. 



Again, as regards the propriety of reviving the specific 

 name of Fagi : when we consider the vast number of 

 nonsense-names already applied to Lepidoptera, and the 

 inappropriateness of many of such names as actually have a 

 meaning, it seems somewhat arbitrary to reject one short 

 euphonious name because, being acquainted with the history 

 of the species, we have made up our minds that the name 

 first applied had particular reference to the food-plant of the 

 larva. If we are to be compelled to study the life-history of 

 every European butterfly before we determine upon adopting 

 its name, there will be plenty of room for correction in our 

 nomenclature. 



Most Entomologists are now ready to allow that euphony 

 is the most important thing in the fabrication of names, 

 whether we use a dictionary, shake up letters in a bag, or 

 industriously cudgel our own brains ; and since such is the 

 case I should myself prefer to retain the original spelling of 



VOL. III. z 



