Oct., 1891.] THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



0. heterodactyla, Haw., Vill. (?). — This beautiful species was intro- 

 duced into our lists in 1867 as Pterophovits hiemcii ; two years after- 

 wards, Dr. Jordan found out that it was not hieracii but apparently a 

 new species and as such, in the " Entomologist's Monthly Magazine" 

 for June, 1869, the species was referred to under the name oiteucrii^ 

 Greening, in a letter written on May 14th. Simultaneously on May 

 22nd, Mr. Gregson read a description on the same species at the 

 Northern Entomological Society, under the name of britanniodactyhis, 

 and this description was published in the August number of the 

 " Entomologist " (1869), although referred to under the same name, 

 the previous month, in the Entomologist's Monthly Magazine." How- 

 ever, Mr. Gregson's name was never accepted, and the first published 

 name, ^^wm^', was used until, in the ' Entomologist's Monthly Magazine,' 

 Vol. XXV., Dr. Mason referred the species to Haworth's heterodactyla, 

 which name is now accepted by all our Entomological Magazines. 



Synonymy — Heterodnctyla, Haw. " Lep. Brit." 477 ; Vill. (?) (1789) ; 

 Tutt, " Ento. Record," I, 94. Teucrii, Greening and Jordan, " E.M.M.," 

 VI., 15 ; Barrett, " E.M.M.," VIII., 155. Britanniodactyhis, Gregson, 

 "E.M.M.," VI., 115, "Ent." IV., 305. Hieracii, Greenmg, " E.M.M.," 

 IV., 16-17; Gregson, " Ent." III., 298. 



With regard to the synonymy of this species, I wrote in the 

 "Entomologist's Record," Vol. I., p. 94, as follows: — " In * Ento- 

 mologist,' Vol. XXII., p. 139-140, Mr. Briggs discussed the priority of 

 heterodactyla, Haw. versus teucrii, and df'cided against the former, 

 because it could not be proven that Haworth's heterodactyla — WiWers'' 

 heterodactyla, but although our species may very questionably be 

 Villers' heterodactyla, I do not think there can be any doubt of its 

 being Haworth's heterodactyla, which is the matter we are concerned 

 with. Even if it can be proven that Haworth used Villers' name and 

 description, yet the new use of a name by a new author makes him 

 responsible for this use. Now, Haworth only described British 

 species, and there is only one British species with markings similar to 

 parvidactyla , to which the description : — ' Alis patentibus fissis, nigris, 

 maculis albis' could possibly apply, and that is teucrii. I quite agree 

 with Mr. Briggs that if we consider Villers' species, we may well be 

 in doubt, but if we restrict ourselves to British species we can 



