378 Mr. W. L. Distant on the Genus Terias. 



to state remain entirely nnmodifiecl, but rather strengthened, 

 Iby tlie criticism which Mr. Butler has presented, 



I Avill further preface my remarks by an assurance to my 

 friend that I am actuated by no splenetic motive, that I 

 have no belief that anything that can be adduced or argued 

 can now alter or modify the various specific dogmas with 

 which his name is, and will be, indissolubly united ; nor do 

 T, on the other hand, imagine that such criticism as he 

 has afforded on my behalf is less friendly than that which 

 he has already presented to most of his contemporaries. At 

 the same time, I cannot disguise the fact that in following Mr. 

 Butler through any monographic paper wliich he has written, 

 I have seldom failed to have the misfortune of disagreeing 

 with some of his specific discriminations, and have sometimes 

 not hesitated to publish my dissent from the same. 



The opening of this Teriad campaign will be found in 

 the 'Annals' for 1885, vol. xvi. p. 336, where, after some few 

 paragraphs, the following peroration is reached : — " Plowever 

 I am willing to accept his admission — a rash one for an ento- 

 mologist to make — 'I treat this species as a variety' (see 

 p. 321). I know of many lepidopterists who do this; but 

 Mr. Distant is the first who has boldly come forward and 

 confessed it." 



Now this formidable quotation is a statement which, I 

 am glad to have an opportunity of stating, still in every way 

 exactly expresses my views. The meaning is very simple 

 and very clear. Boisduval described what I consider a form 

 of Nepheroniahip'pia as a distinct species under another name, 

 and I could only write, " I treat this species " (meaning 

 Boisduval's creation) " as a variety of N. hippiay Mr. 

 Butler has described many " species " (probably even ex- 

 celling the number of those of Walker), and naturally not a 

 few of these have been, and are constantly (tliough termed 

 "species"), treated by some entomologists as simple varieties 

 of other species. Hence I am afraid I cannot accept Mr. 

 Butler's great compliment of being " the first who has boldly 

 come forward and confessed it." 



We now come to the question of the value of " types/' 

 and how far a species shall be regarded as defined by a 

 description without an actual examination of the specimen 

 described. A figure hitherto has been considered decisive, 

 especially when drawn by or under the hands of the original 

 describer. But now a new case is cited by Mr. Butler, 

 for which no precedent exists. In 1869 he described 

 a species under tiie name of Thyca ithiela as from Penang. 

 In 1871 he figured it under the name of Delias ithiela^ still 



