3l8 APPENDIX A. 



92. KiRBY (W. F.). 20 JiUy 1897. 



" Dr Aurivillius* raises the question of the types of Cupido and 

 PolyoinmatiLS. The type of Cupido I take to be C. Piter </ (the % 

 is another species), partly because of the name, and partly because 

 it is described in much greater detail than any other species placed 

 by Schrank under Cupido. I regard Cory don as the type of Poly- 

 ommatus, because it is figured as an example of the section of the 

 genus to which the name best applies." 



[*Reply 81/ Durrani ?\ 



93. Aurivillius (C). 

 [Vide Aurivillius 81/ Durrani^ 



"§ /f Lord Walsingham says 'this is opposed to § 7 of the 

 British Assoc. Rules.' 



To me my proposition seems perfectly to agree with § 6 of these 

 same rules, which says : ' When two authors define and name the 

 same genus, both making it exactly of the same extent, tJie later name 

 should be cancelled in toto and not retained in a modified sense! 

 Some of the most common and most deplorable differences of 

 opinion between authors on lepidoptera are due to the disregard of 

 this rule. 



Everyone who knows the works of Linnaeus, Geoffroy and 

 Fabricius must admit that the two later authors used the name 

 PteropJwrus in exactly the same sense as Alucita, L. It is also 

 quite absurd to assert that Fabricius or Geoffroy 'selected their 

 types from different sections of the genus ' or that they had the 

 intention to subdivide the genus Alucita, L. The fact is that they 

 only (without reason) gave a new name to a systematic idea estab- 

 lished by Linnaeus. 



If we would assume that Fabricius and Geoffroy used Ptero- 

 phorus in a sense differing from Alucita, L. we must also assume 

 that the species included in Pteropliorus by their action were 

 removed from Alucita, the type of which accordingly must be the 

 only remaining species tetradactyla, L. (!)." 



94. IDurrant {J. H.). i July 1898. 



The note to which Dr Aurivillius takes exception was written 

 by me when preparing the original analysis, not by Lord Wal- 

 singham. 



Dr Aurivillius' § 7 f (vide 81/) was connected by him with his 

 reply Vll. rt' (135) and I treated them as inseparable, hence my note. 

 Taking §7 f as an independent note without reference to Vll. d (135) 

 I should agree that the remark I made was erroneous and I have 

 therefore cancelled it as it might prove misleading, but it would 

 appear to be quite justified so far as Reply Vll. d (135) is concerned. 

 I was of course dealing with Dr Aurivillius' argument that Linnaeus' 



