178 Miscellaneous. 
and may have an important bearing on their food and mi- 
erations. 
(6) It appears to be at its maximum in spring and autumn, when 
the waters swarm with embryonic forms. 
On the Priority of Kuploea Castelnaui of Felder over Kupleea 
pheebus. By W. L. Distanr. | 
Under the above heading, in the last issue of this magazine (ante, 
p-. 73), Mr. Butler has expressed himself dissatisfied that in my 
‘ Rhopalocera Malayana’ I have used Felder’s name for a species of 
Euplea in preference to one proposed by himself. 
My reason for this arrangement was simply that Felder’s publica- 
tion bore date 1865, whilst Butler’s description was published in 
1366. 
I was aware that Mr. Butler had preferred and published a charge 
that Felder’s publication was antedated, and also that an explana- 
tion had been given by the Felders that the work could be obtained 
with uncoloured plates at their date of publication, though the 
coloured copies were not ready at that time. ‘This statement I at 
least felt bound to accept; and I was under the impression that, 
from Mr. Butler having since published 1865 as the date of Felder’s 
descriptions of Euplea, he had seen his way to withdraw from so 
serious a charge. 
That accusation amounts, in the first instance, to one of literary 
mendacity, and, secondly, of publishing a designedly false statement 
in support of the same. This I cannot credit; and therefore I could 
not write my ‘ Rhopalocera Malayana’ as though I did. It is only 
natural for Mr. Butler to regret the loss of some of his specific 
names; but he must pardon me for saying that I think he is ill- 
advised in again making so serious a charge against the reputation 
of a lepidopterist who, though no longer here to reply, has still left 
a memory among friends and colleagues which, so far as I can learn, 
leaves no room for stain. 
If, however, I write with pleasure that I accept both Felder’s 
original date and subsequent explanation, it is with regret that I 
find an inclination on the part of my friend Mr. Butler to think 
that in so doing I have in some way accused him of “a childish 
form of egotism.” I am also sorry to have to notice the statement 
(probably in haste) made by Mr. Butler that, when I wrote that he 
had subsequently used Felder’s date, I was “well aware” that in 
so doing he “ had taken the date from the titlepage, either failing 
for the time being to recall the fact of its inaccuracy, or inserting it 
between inverted commas” to show his disbelief in it. I was 
aware of nothing of the kind when I wrote my first part, which was 
in proof when I “mentioned my views to him. I was then told that 
the dates were either in inverted commas or had been altered by the 
Secretary of the Linnean Society. I found on reference that the 
inverted commas were non-existent; and I could not, when writing 
my part, first make a charge against the Felders on the authority 
of Butler, and then explain away his apparent withdrawal of the 
same by a somewhat invidious reference to the Secretary of the 
Linnean Society. 
