Mr. H. J. Elwes on Butterflies from Japan. 465 



some specimens of this genus from Japan, which, tliougli not 

 then published, were indicated as distinct species in the British- 

 Museum collection, and have since been described by him. 

 Mr. Butler seems to think it great presumption on my part 

 to criticise his determination of species, and hints that my 

 rash enthusiasm to do some work in a branch of natural history 

 which is comparatively new to me has led me to write in 

 haste what I shall repent at leisure. 



Now, though I readily agree with him that, in order to 

 avoid controversy, it would be better that his species should 

 be examined by an entomologist of longer experience than 

 myself, I do not at all repent what I have written, though, in 

 the matter of the Candahar Colias^ I must apologize for having 

 used the word described when I should have said admitted. 

 The lajjsus calami must have been apparent from my quoting 

 the authorities for the names. The fact is that at the time 

 my paper was read Mr. Butler's paper (see P. Z. S. 1880, 

 p. 403) was not yet published, and I had only seen a proof 

 of it ; but this slip does not alter the case materially, as I 

 hold that a naturalist who admits species without question 

 that have been previously described by others as varieties or 

 aberrations only, as in the case of C. sareptensis and C. "pal- 

 lida^ is responsible for their specific value. 



To show how far my views of this question coincide with 

 those of otlier naturalists, I may cite one recent case in which 

 Mr. Butler's work has been tested by others ; and here, at any 

 rate, it cannot be said that it has been done by inexperi- 

 enced or hasty workers. Messrs. Godman and Salvin, in 

 ' Biologia Centrali-Americana ' (see " Lepidoptera," p. 73), in 

 dealing with those species of the genus EuiHychia which occur 

 within their limits, have carefully examined their unrivalled 

 collection. The genus having been twice reviewed by Mr. 

 Butler (see P. Z. S. 1866, p. 459, and Journ. Linn. Soc. 

 Zool. xiii. 1876, p. 116), must be considered as one in which 

 his matured views as to specific distinction are shown ; and 

 what is the result? Why, that forty-six supposed species 

 and two named varieties of Euptycliia (for a few of which, 

 however, Mr. Butler is only partly responsible, though he has 

 adopted them) arc reduced to thirty ; and in the case of E. 

 camerta^ Cr,, which had been divided into five species, the fol- 

 lowing remark is made : — " We find it quite impossible to 

 follow Mr. Butler and others in their minute subdivision of 

 this species." See further on, p. 85, with regard to E. poly- 

 2)hemus *. Many similar cases could no doubt be found if it 



* " After a close examination we arc unable to discover any differences 

 by wliich to recog-nize Mr. Butler's three species as distinct i'roui each 

 other." 



