﻿HISTORICAL 
  ACCOUNT 
  OF 
  THE 
  ALUCITIDES. 
  77 
  

  

  p. 
  320, 
  no. 
  11), 
  that 
  trie 
  hod 
  act 
  yla 
  (S. 
  V., 
  p. 
  145, 
  no. 
  3) 
  also 
  appeared 
  to 
  

   agree 
  with 
  chrysodactyla 
  (S.V., 
  p. 
  320, 
  no. 
  11), 
  and 
  that 
  this 
  species 
  is 
  

   figured 
  by 
  Hiibner 
  (pi. 
  ii., 
  fig. 
  9 
  ; 
  pi. 
  iv., 
  fig. 
  18) 
  as 
  trichodactyla. 
  He 
  

   further 
  states 
  that 
  gonodactyla 
  (S. 
  V., 
  p. 
  320, 
  no. 
  13) 
  is 
  a 
  worn 
  example 
  

   of 
  calodactyla, 
  another 
  point 
  that 
  illustrates 
  the 
  close 
  alliance 
  of 
  the 
  

   two. 
  He 
  also 
  notes 
  that 
  he 
  found 
  a 
  specimen 
  from 
  Silesia, 
  in 
  the 
  

   cabinet, 
  labelled 
  by 
  Schiffermuller 
  " 
  odontodactyla," 
  and 
  that 
  this 
  

   agreed 
  with 
  Hiibner's 
  acanthodactyla* 
  (figs. 
  23 
  and 
  21). 
  [Zincken's 
  

   footnotes 
  here 
  quoted 
  were 
  evidently 
  made 
  without 
  a 
  personal 
  inspec- 
  

   tion 
  of 
  Schiffermiiller's 
  specimens 
  and 
  must 
  be 
  considered 
  accordingly.] 
  

   This 
  is 
  one 
  of 
  the 
  most 
  important 
  and 
  difficult 
  of 
  the 
  papers 
  that 
  come 
  

   within 
  our 
  purview. 
  Fabricius 
  and 
  Hiibner, 
  before 
  Charpentier, 
  are 
  

   both 
  credited 
  with 
  having 
  had 
  access 
  to 
  the 
  Schiffermullerian 
  collection 
  

   and 
  to 
  have 
  described 
  and 
  figured 
  species 
  therefrom. 
  The 
  short 
  crisp 
  

   diagnoses 
  of 
  Schiffermuller, 
  in 
  the 
  Syxt. 
  Verzeichniss, 
  are 
  marvels 
  in 
  

   their 
  way, 
  and 
  leave 
  an 
  expert 
  with 
  a 
  very 
  definite 
  idea, 
  in 
  most 
  cases, 
  

   of 
  what 
  the 
  author 
  meant. 
  Fabricius, 
  the 
  first 
  author 
  who 
  is 
  credited 
  

   with 
  having 
  examined 
  the 
  specimens, 
  might, 
  so 
  far 
  as 
  some 
  of 
  his 
  

   descriptions 
  tally 
  with 
  the 
  original 
  diagnoses, 
  as 
  well 
  have 
  performed 
  

   the 
  operation 
  with 
  his 
  eyes 
  shut, 
  and, 
  in 
  spite 
  of 
  the 
  excellence 
  of 
  some 
  

   of 
  them, 
  one 
  is 
  forced 
  to 
  conclude 
  either 
  (1) 
  that 
  other 
  of 
  Fabricius' 
  

   examinations 
  were 
  of 
  the 
  most 
  cursory 
  nature, 
  and 
  hence 
  purposeless, 
  

   (2) 
  that 
  he 
  really 
  mixed 
  up 
  allied 
  species 
  which 
  he 
  had 
  no 
  capacity 
  to 
  

   distinguish, 
  or 
  (3) 
  that 
  the 
  species 
  were 
  already 
  mixed 
  before 
  he 
  saw 
  

   them, 
  and 
  his 
  descriptions 
  of 
  migadactylus 
  and 
  ochrodactylus 
  bear 
  out 
  

   this 
  latter 
  view. 
  The 
  marvellous 
  unanimity 
  that 
  prevails 
  between 
  the 
  

   Schiffermullerian 
  diagnoses, 
  the 
  Hiibnerian 
  figures, 
  and 
  the 
  Charpen- 
  

   terian 
  notes, 
  suggests 
  that, 
  in 
  almost 
  every 
  case, 
  the 
  insects 
  bearing 
  

   the 
  Schiffermullerian 
  names 
  are 
  actually 
  figured 
  by 
  Hiibner 
  under 
  the 
  

   same 
  name. 
  The 
  only 
  doubtful 
  insect 
  is, 
  as 
  pointed 
  out 
  above, 
  mega- 
  

   dactyla, 
  S.V. 
  Schiffermiiller's 
  description 
  and 
  position 
  suggest 
  xpilo- 
  

   dactyla, 
  Curt., 
  the 
  Fabrician 
  description 
  made 
  therefrom 
  also 
  corrobo- 
  

   rates 
  this 
  view, 
  except 
  for 
  a 
  detail 
  in 
  the 
  description, 
  viz., 
  " 
  pedes 
  albo, 
  

   fusco 
  maculati," 
  which 
  alone 
  would 
  make 
  this 
  determination 
  impossible. 
  

   Laspeyres 
  considers 
  the 
  description 
  applies 
  to 
  galactodactyla, 
  Hb., 
  

   W.V., 
  a 
  species 
  Schiffermiiller 
  and 
  Fabricius 
  both, 
  however, 
  described. 
  

   Hiibner 
  figures 
  as 
  megadactyla 
  the 
  dark 
  grey 
  form 
  of 
  gonodactyla, 
  and 
  

   Charpentier 
  says 
  that 
  this 
  tallied 
  with 
  the 
  Schiffermullerian 
  specimen 
  he 
  

   saw, 
  and 
  this 
  species 
  has 
  legs 
  as 
  described 
  by 
  Fabricius, 
  but 
  is 
  not 
  

   white 
  as 
  described 
  by 
  him 
  nor 
  does 
  it 
  agree 
  at 
  all 
  satisfactorily 
  

   with 
  Schiffermiiller's 
  diagnosis. 
  Werneburg 
  opines 
  that 
  it 
  is 
  nemo- 
  

   ralis, 
  a 
  just 
  possible 
  solution, 
  as 
  the 
  species 
  wears 
  " 
  white." 
  ami 
  

   gonodactyla 
  might 
  easily 
  be 
  confused 
  with 
  it, 
  but 
  the 
  Fabrician 
  

   description 
  does 
  not 
  otherwise 
  agree. 
  At 
  any 
  rate, 
  it 
  is 
  quite 
  clear 
  

   that 
  when 
  Hiibner 
  figured 
  megadactyla 
  he 
  had 
  gonodactyla 
  before 
  him. 
  

   that 
  at 
  the 
  time 
  of 
  Charpentier's 
  examination 
  such 
  a 
  specimen 
  bore 
  

   this 
  name 
  in 
  the 
  Schiffermullerian 
  collection, 
  that 
  this 
  specimen 
  was 
  

   not 
  the 
  one 
  described 
  by 
  Schiffermuller, 
  nor 
  that 
  described 
  by 
  

   Fabricius 
  under 
  this 
  name. 
  We 
  still 
  believe 
  that 
  the 
  original 
  miga- 
  

   dactyla, 
  Schiff., 
  was 
  spilodactyla, 
  Curt., 
  and 
  that 
  this 
  specimen 
  was 
  

  

  * 
  The 
  original 
  specimens 
  from 
  which 
  Hiibner's 
  tigs. 
  23 
  and 
  24 
  were 
  made 
  are 
  

   in 
  my 
  collection 
  (Zincken). 
  

  

  