Mr. W. L. Distant on the Oenits Terias. 379 



giving the same habitat, and repeated the information in a 

 third organ of publication in 1872. I reproduced the figure 

 and description in my ' Rhopalocera Malayana/ the habitat 

 " Penang " compelling its insertion. We are now informed 

 til at the locality was an error, as the type was labelled thus : 

 *'' P.," which with Wallace's specimens denotes " Penang," 

 but with specimens received from the East India Company 

 represents " Darjeeling, Peai\ion." It is now opined that it 

 came from the last-named locality, and it is stated that "had 

 Mr. Distant examined my type^ which, byhis own admission, he 

 did not do, he would have avoided the repetition of this error." 

 Surely this logically implies two axioms, viz. (1) Mr. Bntler's 

 recorded localities cannot be taken without an examination 

 and verification of the labels attached to his " types ;" and (2) 

 if " types " are not contained in this country, neither names 

 nor localities should be used. 



" Terias senna, Feld." 



Mr. Butler states that I have figured what he considers 

 and described as a distinct species [T. inanata) as the T. senna, 

 Feld. If this is so, then 1 appear to have erred in describing 

 T. inanata as a variety of T. senna, and I should more 

 correctly have treated it as a simple synonym of that species. 

 I examined Mr. Butler's " species " in the national collection 

 before I wrote, and, though words may be found to repre- 

 sent differences, I certainly failed to see any exhibited in 

 the specimens themselves that appeared to warrant their 

 differentiation. Mr. Butler quotes Felder's differential 

 diagnosis between T. senna and T. santana with approval. 

 If these are distinct, why did he in another Teriad paper, 

 published in 1871, enumerate Terias senna as a variety 

 of T. santana'^ If, however, we turn to Mr. Butler's 

 original description of his T. inanata, we read that it only 

 differs from other specimens which he described under the 

 name of T. hehridina by " the entire absence of markings on 

 the under surface of the wings." Now I have figured two 

 specimens of T. senna, one with markings underneath and 

 one with those markings absent ; and therefore if, as Mr. 

 Butler says, I have in this way figured his species, then his 

 description must be wrong. Again, he has figured this T. 

 hehridina (P. Z. S. 1875, pi. Ixvii. fig. 8), from which he says 

 his T. inanata does not differ on the upper surface ; and surely 

 " every candid reader " to whom he rightly appeals must 

 be struck with the dissimilarity between that figure and those 

 given by myself. Probably some explanation was inadver- 

 tently omitted. 



