110 
bimaculatis; antennis pectinatis,” the female as Phalena tiliaria, “alis ferrugineis ; 
antennis setaceis;” the specimen exhibited was what a hybrid between piniaria and 
tiliaria might have been expected to be, if those forms had in fact been two species 
instead of the sexes of one. The specimen was sexually a female, and the abdomen 
was apparently distended with eggs; the general colour was midway between the 
colours of the ordinary male and female, but the size and the markings were those of 
the male. He had been puzzled to know how to describe it; he would not be without 
precedent if he called it a “hermaphrodite,” or, adopting ihe nomenclature of Mr. 
Newman (Zool. for 1851, Appendix, p. cxl., where the distinct phenomena often con- 
founded under the term hermaphrodite were classified), a“ hemigynous” specimen. Mr. 
Dunning doubted, however, whether an union in the single individual of the structural 
differences between the sexes was not necessary to constitute hemigynism, or whether 
an individual which presented the structure of one sex throughout, but the colour and 
external markings of the other, was properly hemigynous; such an individual was 
abnormal, certainly, but were the superficial differences from the typical form anything 
more than skin-disease or cutaneous eruptions? The absence of any “ addition to or 
alteration of a part or organ” prevented the application of the theory of “ dimorphism” 
as enunciated by Mr. Pascoe (ante, p. 15); and the isolation of the case excluded alike 
the “ polymorphism ” and “ Jocal form” of Mr. A. R. Wallace (ibid ; and Tr. Linn. Soe. 
xxv. 5, 10), and the theory of “ mimetic resemblance” of Mr. Bates, to establish any 
of which a solitary example was insufficient, and a large number of instances—a more 
or less permanent race—was required. There seemed to be nothing left but to fall 
back upon the old term “ variation ;” at the same time the variation was not simple, 
casnal, aimless, but in a definite direction, as if designed; it was the case of a female 
retaining essentially her sex, but having an unmistakeable bias or tendency to assume 
the garb and outward appearance of the male; he would exhibit the insect as Fidonia 
piniaria, an andromorphous variety of the female. 
Mr. J. J. Weir suggested that “dichromatisin,” a ‘ dichromatic variety,” would 
denote the phenomenon in question. 
Prof. Westwood hoped never again to have heard the word hermaphrodite applied 
to the abnormal forms under discussion; the best and only proper term was that given 
by Prof. Lacordaire, “ gynandromorphous.” He thought that, at all events some cases, 
where the differences were external only and not structural, were truly cases of gynan- 
dromorphism. For instance, he had an Orange-tip butterfly (Anthocharis Cardamines), 
which was female in every respect, except that on the tip of one fore wing were about 
a dozen of the bright orange scales which characterized the male; he regarded that 
Specimen as possessing in itself the rudiments of two distinct creatures, a male and a 
female, and that the female influence had so far predominated as to have absorbed the 
male, except in that small portion of the wing where the male influence prevailed. 
With respect to variation generally, no attempt to classify the various forms and phases 
of it had yet been made; the subject was a wide one, but it would have to be dealt 
with, and in the hands of a Darwin might be made of surpassing interest and 
value. 
Paper read. 
Mr. J.S. Baly read a paper entitled “* Descriptions of New Genera and Species of 
Phytophaga.” Twenty-one species were described, five belonging to the Eumolpida, 
the remainder to the Gallerucide ; two new genera were characterized under the name 
of Hylaspes and Buphonida, both of the subfamily Gallerucine. 
