on the genus Colias. 3 



If Keferstein had had sufficient or any specimens before 

 him of many of those forms which he treats as species, 

 I feel sm-e he would not have done so. In no case does 

 he attempt to define any of his forms by their characters, 

 geographical distribution, or otherwise, and the result is 

 therefore anything but satisfactory. 



Dr. Hagen, on the other hand, has given us a most 

 excellent review of the forms occurring in North America, 

 the whole of which he reduces to eight species, and, as 

 he had of the last four of these only three specimens in 

 all to study, it is clear that he also has, from want of 

 material, treated them somewhat unequally. I must 

 say, however, that his remarks on the genus are dis- 

 tinguished by a scientific breadth of view and a fearless, 

 though temperate and well deserved, criticism of in- 

 accuracies which cannot fail to have a most excellent 

 effect in America and elsewhere ; and I believe that 

 Dr. Hagen is laying the foundation of a more reasonable 

 nomenclature for the butterflies of North America than 

 has hitherto been possible. Though Mr. W. H. Edwards' 

 species are suppressed wholesale, I cannot doubt that in 

 the main Dr. Hagen is perfectly right, and I hope his 

 review of the other genera will follow those which have 

 appeared on Pajnlio, Pieris, and Colias. 



For my part, I will not hesitate to say that, notwith- 

 standing the somewhat intolerant criticism of my first 

 paper by Mr. Butler, all I have seen and learnt since has 

 only strengthened and confirmed my views as to the 

 impossibility of defining or recognising many of the 

 Colias described by him, most of which, I believe, and 

 with greater certainty than at first, cannot be classified 

 even as constant varieties. 



I am glad to find that Mr. H. Pryer, in a catalogue of 

 the Lepidoptera of Japan, just published, supports me 

 in this opinion, and says : — " I am led by the result of 

 my own observations to regard ' species ' in the widest 

 acceptance of this much-abused term, and shall there- 

 fore probably excite the ire of those numerous gentlemen 

 who devote their whole existence to describing 'new 

 species,' and who, by their active, but, in my opinion, 

 misdirected labour, obscure many most important and 

 interesting facts." 



The concurrence in such opinions as these, both by 

 genuine field naturalists such as Mr. Pryer, and by men 

 of world-wide entomological fame such as Dr. Hagen, 



