the genus Erchia. 319 



Satyrida in the British Museum, in 1868, that collection 

 was so poor in European species that there was some 

 excuse for the numerous incorrect or douhtful identifi- 

 cations and omissions which are found in it, though a 

 very little care would have avoided the still more 

 numerous incorrect localities given for many well-known 

 species. But when a few years ago the rich and correctly- 

 named collection of Zeller was acquired by the Museum, 

 a good opportunity was afforded of correcting these mis- 

 takes, and of rearranging the genus in a manner which 

 would make it of great service to the number of English 

 entomologists who had previously no good collection of 

 European Lepidoptera available for reference. 



And, if ]\[r. Butler had not been satisfied with, or had 

 disagreed with Zeller's ideas, which, however, were based 

 on a much greater personal knowledge of this fauna than 

 his own, it might have been expected that he would have 

 taken some pains to study the latest opinions of the best 

 authorities before rearranging the Collection. It appears, 

 however, that so far from this, he has not even taken 

 the trouble to write new labels, but has, as far as 

 possible, endeavoured to make the new specimens fit in 

 with the old names, and has in some cases separated the 

 correctly-named specimens of Zeller, and placed them 

 under several different so-called species ; whilst in others 

 he has united several perfectly well-known and distinct 

 species under one head, distinguishing them as "local 

 form" or "var.," without apparently the least idea as 

 to what their local or general distribution is. 



I am quite ready to admit the difficulty of correctly 

 identifying many of the figures of Esper, Hiibner, and 

 others, and also of ascertaining with certainty the 

 exact dates of publication of these plates, by which 

 alone their priority can be determined. It really 

 matters little or nothing now whether, for instance, 

 melas of Herbst has two years' priority over maurus of 

 Esper, as Staudinger thinks, or whether, as Butler 

 believes, maurus has nineteen years' priority over melas. 

 As, however, Esper distinctly states that his maurus 

 came from Hungary, I fail to see why Butler should give 

 its locality as " Pyrenees," or why he should mix up 

 with it such perfectly distinct and well-known species as 

 nerine, Frey., stygne, Ochs., alecto, Hiibn. (so marked by 

 Zeller, a variety of glacialis, Esp.), and scipio, Boisd., 



