GLEANINGS FROM DARTMOOR. 181 
have taken it from very many localities. I have long series of it from 
the Isle of Wight and various parts of Devonshire, and shorter ones 
from Cornwall, Kent, many parts of Wales, and Dove Dale—which 
last are certainly not serena. I have it from the York Wolds and else- 
where, all, however, are of the same type, rather smaller than what we 
may call the Mediterranean form, but fully as large, if not larger, than 
my captures of the species at Digne, the Cevennes, or the Pyrenees, 
or in the Engadine, at lower altitudes, such as Alvaneu Bad, etc., 
whilst a few specimens I took at Baveno, on the Lake of Maggiore, 
are no larger than my British captures, though they are decidedly 
darker. J am therefore compelled to form the conclusion that serena 
is very rare, at all events in these isles, and that our ordinary form is 
the galathea of Linné. 
But to go back to Linneé’s description, Dr. Verity says (ante l.c., p. 
181) that Linneus “actually states that there are no ocelli on the 
upper side.’’ I have looked in vain in the original description for this 
Statement. I suppose the remark Dr. Verity refers to is this, ‘‘ OceLut, 
in pagina inferiore tantuin, obsoleti.” This is a totally different thing 
to saying there are no ocelli on the upperside, and in a, brief diagnosis 
of this kind, means no more than that whilst on the underside they, 
the ocelli, were an evident character, on the upperside they were not 
an evident character; that is certainly what I should infer from such 
a description in brief, and it would apply to the vast majority of 
specimens that I know, in nearly all of which the ocelli of the upper- 
side have to be sought for, and would not be likely to be mentioned in 
the brief diagnosis Linné always adopted. It might be well to state 
that the question of the possibility and advisability of considering the 
specimens contained in the Linnean collection as types was most 
carefully considered by our National Nomenclature Committee for 
Entomology—a committee composed of men of very different opinions 
and standpoints—and that body unanimously came to the conclusion 
that it was neither possible or advisable. Many reasons were evident, 
but one alone I think was sufficient, viz., that it was quite impossible to 
know whether his descriptions were drawn up from specimens or from 
the various books he referred to. ‘‘ Types,” as we understand them, 
were certainly unknown in the time of Linneeus, and [ do not think it 
is reasonable, nor yet scientific, to ask us working entomologists to 
adopt as typical of Linnean species the specimens that are in the 
Linnean collection. In making this statement I do not for a moment 
suggest that Dr. Verity is not scientific, very friendly correspondence 
with him proves him to be a most accurate and minute observer, but 
this is a point that I rather think he has probably overlooked. 
Pararge aegeria race egerides, Ster.—Since Dr. Verity’s observations 
appeared (I.c.) Dr. Perkins, and also our late friend Mr. Gibbs, have 
both written very interesting papers on the species. JI have an 
intimate acquaintance with it in Devonshire, and to a less extent in 
other districts also, but I believe I have only taken a single specimen 
of it on the continent, and that was many years ago at Heidelberg, a 
lovely spot of happy recollections, but never to be visited again by me; 
for after the present catastrophe I do not desire to see either a Ger- 
man or his country any more. 
My observations confirm Dr. Perkins entirely so far as the May 
and June and the summer broods are concerned. I am never able to 
