Entomological Society. 5525 



I think it will be difficult to explain away their teaching. I have already anticipated 

 some objections: I will allude to others. It is said, in the instance of Psi and tridens, 

 that on the North-American continent four, that is two pairs, of Acronyctae exist which 

 approach our British ones so closely that a complete series is thus established ; there 

 is also a solitary European species, cuspis, which seems to be allied to all the others. 

 These facts do not appear to me to militate against the view I have taken of the pre- 

 valence of pairs: perhaps one of the North-American pairs may be identical with our 

 Psi and tridens, and the other pair quite distinct ; but I learn that no pains have been 

 yet taken to distinguish the larvae of these species: the ; continental cuspis standing 

 somewhat isolated is no objection, as I do not say that all species are associated in 

 pairs, but only that some are so. Again, I cannot admit the doctrine of chance, that 

 the correspondence between two species is a mere matter of accident. Finally, to 

 the question of the general entomologist, 'Are these pairs really composed of two dis- 

 tinct species?' I reply that this is established beyond all question by the difference of 

 the larvae." 



Mr. Stainton observed that this theory of pairs would be completely upset if the 

 list were extended to European Lepidoptera, as there would be found in many instances 

 Continental species quite as closely allied to the pairs mentioned as these British spe- 

 cies are to each other. 



Mr. Westwood said that he had heard, for the first time, a theory proposed, capa- 

 ble, as was asserted, of being tested by the productions of a limited geographical range 

 like Great Britain. He had supposed it to be generally admitted that a knowledge 

 both of existing and extinct forms was requisite for the proposition of natural laws. 

 Was it intended that in each country throughout the world these double species should 

 occur? Was it only in the Lepidoptera they were to be looked for? Was it intended 

 that each species should be thus divided, as it were, into two sub-species? Moreover, 

 in the instances cited, it was evident Mr. Newman had adduced relations of analogy, 

 supposing them those of affinity. No one could support such a theory. Was it 

 intended that each species should be attended by another species intimately allied to 

 it? No one ever doubted such a principle. In the opening part of his paper Mr. 

 Newman had alluded to the binary divisions of the highest groups, such as Vertebrata 

 and Invertebrata, Ptilota and Aptera, &c. ; but in the latter part he had confused 

 these relations (vague as they often were) with the closest possible affinity that could 

 exist in Nature, exclusive, of course, of that between individuals of the same species. 



Mr. Lubbock considered that binary divisions in classification resulted from the 

 convenience arising to classifiers, and not from any law of Nature, and that the "pairs" 

 mentioned by Mr. Newman could only prove that each species has some one other 

 species more nearly allied to it than are the rest of its congeners. 



New Crimean Carabus. 



Mr. Douglas read the following paper, intituled ' Characters of an apparently unde- 

 scibed Crimean Carabus, taken by Lieutenant Thomas Blakiston, of the Royal Artil- 

 lery ; by Mr. Newman : ' — 



" Carabus Blakistoni, Newman. 



" Niger, prothoracis elytr or unique marginibus chalybeo-purpureis : prothorax fere 

 quadratus, lateribus subconvexis paullo dilatatis, paullo rejlexis, marginibus 

 antico et postico excavuiis, angulis posticis paullo productis, dorso scabro ince- 



