78 THE entomologist's record. 



ix., p. 251 — where such facts as were known and such observations 

 as had then been made were collected and published. — J. W. Tutt, 

 Westcombe Hill, S.E. February 1st, 1899. 



The kelations of Lasius americanus and Aphis prunicola. — In 

 1890 Dr. E. F. Smith noticed {Ent. Amer., vi., pp. 101-103, 201- 

 207) that Lasius clavl<jer was intimately connected with Aphis pruni- 

 cola, and although he did not observe the act, he strongly suspected 

 that the ant brought the Aphids from below ground in the spring and ■ 

 placed them upon the twigs, thus more or less directly causing their 

 difltusion in peach orchards. Mr. Webster has now published {Can. 

 Ent., xxxi., p. 15) some observations on Lasius a)nt'ricanus, which he 

 noticed attending carefully the same species of Aphis on peach roots, 

 but he also witnessed the ants transporting the Aphids from one twig 

 to another, although not able to detect one carrying the Aphis from 

 the roots to the branches. He further notices that L, ajnericanus 

 burrows near the bases of young peach trees, choosing the part nearest 

 the tree where the ground is heavy, and sometimes even gnawing the 

 tender bark. The Aphis, below ground, clusters round the most 

 tender rootlets, the ants, which are in constant attendance, at once 

 removing the Aphids as soon as they are exposed. In some places 

 patches of bark had been removed, and the wounds were being covered 

 with a thin growth of new bark, on which the Aphids were closely 

 packed, the latter living on the newly-forming bark, and being col- 

 lected along the edges of the wound precisely as Sckizuneura lanigera 

 congregates on the newly-forming bark of apple where wounds have 

 been caused by pruning. Webster considers that Lasius americanus 

 intentionally gnaws the bark on the roots to furnish a supply of food 

 for Aphis prunicula, vt'henewer there is a lack of tender rootlets for the 

 purpose. — J. W. Tutt. February 1st, 1899. 



The nomenclature of British Butterflies. — The constant 

 changes which are made in the nomenclature of British butterflies is 

 very puzzling to young entomologists, and tend to great confusion. 

 Personally, I hold the opinion that it is impossible to apply the rules 

 of priority strictly, and that it is much better to use a specific name 

 long applied, and generally known to continental, as well as British, 

 entomologists, than to attempt to make changes on account of doubt- 

 ful and often trivial questions of priority or identification. Mr. South 

 has given in the Entomuhxjist, February, 1899, a list which seems to 

 me to be moie generally correct than any other, and I think it would 

 be well if a committee of British lepidopterists were appointed to settle 

 the nomenclature of the Lepidoptera, as the British ornithologists 

 have done for the British birds. I am induced to write this partly 

 because, in looking over the re-arrangement of the genus L'olias at the 

 British Museum lately made by INIr. Butler, I see some changes which 

 I do not suppose he or anyone else will attempt to defend. C. cdusa 

 is called (''. hyalc, and is united with the African C. electra, whilst C. 

 hjjale has got a new name, which I would not repeat even if I could 

 remember it. Mr. Kirby again, on Entornolofjist, p. 31, uses the 

 name of Chrysuphanus turcicns, for Chrysophanus phlaeas, thus ob- 

 scuring two facts which I think he will not dispute. Mr. South's list 

 shows that three such careful workers as Messrs. Barrett, j\Ieyrick, 

 and Tutt cannot agree as to the right names to use for some of our 

 common species, and none of them agrees with Standiuger, whose 



