60 



distinct species?' I reply that this is established beyond all question by the difference 

 of the larvEB," 



Mr. Stainton observed that this theory of pairs would be completely upset if the 

 list were extended to European Lepidoptera, as there would be found in many instances 

 Continental species quite as closely allied to the pairs mentioned as these British spe- 

 cies are to each other. 



Mr. Westwood said that he had heard, for the first time, a theory proposed, capa- 

 ble, as was asserted, of being tested by the productions of a limited geographical range 

 like Great Britain. He had supposed it to be generally admitted that a knowledge 

 both of existing and extinct forms was requisite for the proposilion of natural laws. 

 Was it intended that in each country throughout the world these double species should 

 occur? Was it only in the Lepidoplera they were to be looked for? Was it intended 

 that each species should be thus divided, as it were, into two sub-species? Moreover, 

 in the instances cited, it was evident Mr. Newman had adduced relations of analogy, 

 supposing thera those of affinity. No one could support such a theory. Was it 

 intended that each species should be attended by another species intimately allied to 

 it? No one ever doubted such a principle. In the opening part of his paper Mr. 

 Newman had alluded to the binary divisions of the highest groups, such as Vertebrata 

 and Invertebrata, Plilota and Aptera, &c. ; but in the latter part he had confused 

 these relations (vague as they often were) with the closest possible affinity that could 

 exist in Nature, exclusive, of course, of that between individuals of the same species. 



Mr. Lubbock considered that binary di\isions in classification resulted from the 

 convenience arising to classifiers, and not from any law of Nature, and that the "pairs' 

 mentioned by Mr. Newman could only prove that each species has souie one other 

 species more nearly allied to it than are the rest of its congeners. 



New Crimean Carabus. 



Mr. Douglas read the following paper, intituled ' Characters of an apparently unde- 

 scribed Crimean Carabus, taken by Lieutenant Thomas Blakiston, of the Royal Artil- 

 lery ; by Mr. Newman : ' — 



.. " Carabus Blaeistoni, Newman. 



" Niger, prothoracis ehjtrorumque marginibtis chalyheo-purpureis : prothorax fere 

 quadratus, laleribus subconvexis pauUo dilatatis, paullo rejlexis, marginibus 

 antico et postico excavatis, angulis poslicis paullo productis, dorso scabro ina- 

 quali : scutellum reconditum : elylris talis, amplis, convexis, utroque \3strialo, 

 spalioque lalerali intus marginemrejlexum scabro, striisprofundepunctis, inter- 

 spatiis elevatis carinceformibus, '3lio, 7tno, llmoque foveis nonnullis magnis 

 inlerruptis. (Corp. long. 1*2 unc. elytrorum lat '55 unc.) 



" Colour black, slightly shining, with a steel-blue tint in the furrow, caused by the 

 reflexed margin of prothorax and elytra. The prothorax is almost square, the lateral 

 margins slightly convex, slightly dilated aqj| slightly reflexed, the anterior margin 

 concave, iis angles rounded, the posterior margin also concave, each of its angles pro- 

 duced into an obtuse tooth. Scutellum hidden. Elytra ample, convex, each with 13 

 deeply and regularly punctured strise, the interspaces distinct, elevated and shining: 

 they are entire, with the exception of the 3rd, 7th and llih, counting from the suture, 

 and each of these is interrupted by 7 or 8 large deep foveae. 



i 



