( 493 ) 



On receiving 0. Neumann's material we saw at once tbat our supposition was 

 correct. 



TLis being our standpoint, nobody can wonder that we are true to it also in 

 the present memoir. If there are geographical distinctions known to us, we record 

 them ; and in order to prevent the record from being forgotten or overlooked, and 

 hence lost to science, we give a name to the geographical variety, however minute 

 the distinction may be. 



We have been blamed severely for occupying this standpoint, and acting in 

 accordance with it, by Dr. Pagenstecher in his paper on the butterflies collected 

 during Baron von Erlanger's expedition after von Erlanger and 0. Neumann liad 

 separated.* Though we hold Dr. Pagenstecher in too high esteem to answer him 

 by a mere personal counter-attack, we judge it ill-advised to be again entirely 

 silent, as we were when Professor Aurivillius, in his great work on African 

 Rhopalocera, misrepresented our views on the nomenclature of varieties.t We 

 take the opportunity given to us by Dr. Pagenstecher, not of repudiating a blame 

 by blaming, but of answering the criticism by contrasting the aims, methods and 

 results of two schools of entomologists — if we may employ the term " school " in 

 this connection — leaving it to the reader to decide whether Dr. Pagenstecher is 

 right or wrong in his appeal for " simplification." 



First let us consider for a moment the nomenclature of geographical forms. 

 Aurivillius and Pagenstecher disapprove strongly of the method we follow in 

 naming such varieties. The former says that he agrees with Staudiuger in 

 designating geographical varieties in contradistinction to other varieties as var. 

 We maintain that the term ear. has been used and is in use for different kinds 

 of varieties, and that therefore its restriction to one single kind, namely, the 

 geographical variety — leads to fconfusion. Aurivillius himself, in Rhopalocera Aethio- 

 jAca, furnishes a great many instances which justify our contention entirely. He 

 gives on p. 39 Amauris echeria as occurring, besides in Kamerun and Fernando Po, 

 from Cape Colony northwards to British East Africa; and J. echeria var. albi- 

 maculata as inhabiting practically the same East African countries. On p. 54 

 we iind Mycalesis dorothea recorded from Sierra Leone and its var. melusina from 

 the same place ; on p. 55 Mycalesis gala from Kamerun and the Congo, and var. 

 rioUiaci'iu from the Congo. And similarly the " species" and their " vars." occur 

 together, according to Aurivillius, in the case of Mi/calesis eulgaria and var. 

 angulosa and var. tolosa ; Mycalesis nebulosa and var. agraphis ; Henotesia strigula 

 and var. subsimilis ; Acraea acrita and var. charibula ; Acraea braesia and var. 

 reqiilis : Charaxes tiriilates and var. mixtus ; Appias isokani and var; dubia (both 

 from Mombasa only I) ; Teracolus ioiie and var. phlegi/as ; etc., etc. 



These " vars." can surely not be geographical varieties. Sometimes Aurivillius 

 employs the term " var. geogr.," thus showing that " var." is not even for himself 

 sulKciently precise. In fact, the term " var." is, as contended by ourselves, 

 used by Aurivillius and others for all kinds of varieties (individual, seasonal, 

 and geographical). This is the reason why we have dropped it altogether. We 

 thought at first to rejjlace " var." by " subsp." as a term lor the geographical 

 variety = subspecies, but felt convinced that the application of " subsj)." would 

 soon become as indiscriminate us that of " var.," and flierefore decided otherwise. 

 To emphasize also nonienchitorially the great distinction between the geograpliical 



• ./ahrb. Nmi. Vrr. Nat. Iv. p. 121 (19U2). 



t niiujjali'Ctra Af/hiojiira p, 25; in Kiinijl. Si). Nat. Ah Uandl. xxxi. C (18!)S) (issued 1899). 



34 



