SYNONYMY OF BRITISH HEMARIDS. 509 



" European Butterflies and Moths " (translating Heinemann's edition 

 of Berge) and South's " Synonymic List " (adapting Staudinger's 

 " Catalog," ed. 2) follow the German usage, and the greatest 

 confusion has resulted. Zeller, in reviewing Wallengren's " Skan- 

 dinaviens Heterocer-Fjarilar " (Stett. Ent. Zeit., xxx., p. 387), 

 called attention to the confusion, and suggested a somewhat drastic 

 remedy, namely, the substitution of the names lonicerae or cap- 

 rifolii and scabiosae or knautiae for the two species, accord- 

 ing to their foodplants. He writes: "The author (Wallengren) has 

 overlooked the distinctive feature by which the two species, even 

 in quite worn specimens, are to be differentiated with certainty. The 

 Zonicera-h&wk has the median cell divided longitudinally by a dark 

 line which is caused by a fold ; this line is always wanting in the 

 Scabiosa-ha.wk. The names fuciformis and bombyliformis, as applied 

 by Ochsenheimer, are here inverted, as Wallengren, with Dalman and 

 the English, accepts the Zonicera-Sphmx for Linne's .S. fuciformis, 

 while Ochsenheimer takes the Scabiosa-Sphmx for it." He quotes 

 Linne's diagnosis from the Fauna Suecica*, and adds that it denotes 

 so surely the scabious species that he cannot do otherwise than 

 agree with Illiger, that Linne's citation of Rosel and the " habitat 

 in Zonicera" are incorrect, like so many of Linne's citations, and 

 that thus there is not even any proof that he has " without doubt 

 mixed the two," as Dalman asserted. Zeller does not know on 

 what ground the English agree with Wallengren's view ; even if 

 a type in the Linnean collection supported it, he (Zeller) would 

 still prefer to rely on the indubitableness of Linne's words. Kirby 

 (Zool. Rec, vi., p. 382) adds a note : "The former [i.e., lonicerae, Zell.] 

 is certainly fucifo?-mis, L. ; his description of bombyliformis (Sys. Nat., 

 ed. 10) is less satisfactory, and the two species seem to be confounded 

 in his subsequent works." "Former" in this note may be a lapsus 

 for "latter," for in 187 1 we find him inclining to follow the German 

 usage ; he says ( Proc. Ent. Soc. Zona 1 ., 187 1, p. xxi) that, in the 10th 

 edition of the Systema Naturae, Linne described the broad-bordered 

 species as bombyliformis and the narrow sls fuciformis; in the 2nd edition 

 of the Fauna Suecica he described the narrow-bordered as fuciformis, 

 while in Syst. Nat., ed. 12, he described the broad-bordered species 

 under this name, and referred bombyliformis as a variety to porcellus, 

 and adds, " Under these circumstances the only way to avoid con- 

 fusion appears to be to go back to the 10th edition, as has been done 

 on the Continent, and apply the name bombyliformis to the broad- 

 bordered and fuciformis to the narrow-bordered species." But 

 subsequent and closer investigation of the 10th edition led Kirby 

 to modify his views, and, in 1896, he makes out a good case 

 (Ent., xxix., pp. 39 — 40) for the restoration of the name fuciformis, 

 L., to the honeysuckle species, and the resuscitation .of the name 

 tityus, L. — which had been allowed to lapse entirely — for the 

 scabious species. His note is so readily accessible that it is 

 needless to quote it at length, but his conclusions are stated as 

 follows: "(1) The type of Linne's species (fuciformis) was the 

 broad-bordered species, feeding on Lonicera. (2) In his Fauna Suecica 



* Unfortunately, Zeller had not access to the 10th edition of the Systema 

 Naturae, on which rests the principal elucidation of Linne's action. 



