i8 93 .] THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 183 



Stephens in his British Museum Catalogue 1850, Westwood 1855, and 

 Stainton 1857, use Polyommatus for Blues and Chrysophanus for Coppers. 

 Boisduval 1833 uses Polyommatus for Coppers and Argus for Blues. 

 The balance of authority is seen from this summary to be rather in 

 favour of the use of Lycana for the Blues. 



Mr. Dale's next assertion that argus L. is our common blue 

 certainly entitles him to be included in the ranks of what Mr. Robson 

 once called the " resurrection-men." I am not at present in a position 

 to offer an opinion as to whether Mr. Dale is right but would call 

 attention to one or two points bearing on the question. Mr. Dale 

 relies again on Linnaeus' references, but he will find that both 

 Donovan in relation to hvale, Curtis in relation to Camilla (sibylla), 

 Stephens in relation to mam, ligea, sibilla, populi and maturna, and 

 Westwood, make pointed reference to the lack of agreement between the 

 descriptions and the references of the great naturalist. It is certain 

 that, while there has been considerable difference of opinion as to 

 whether argus L. was the same insect as cegon W.V., only a few of the 

 very earliest authors, among them Mr. Dale's bete noir Hufnagel, held 

 the opinion entertained by Mr. Dale. 



With regard to minimus Fuessl., Mr. Dale says that Fabricius 

 rejected the name on account of its absurdity. Of this there is not a 

 particle of evidence ; Fabricius was describing an insect in Schiffer- 

 muller's Cabinet and he used the name which was there given to it. 

 He gives minimus as a synonym, but attributes it to Esper, and shows 

 no sign of any acquaintance with Fuessli's work. It must be re- 

 membered that the " law of priority" was not formulated at that time. 



Mr. Dale next deals with the agestis puzzle. He says that Esper 

 adopted the name oi medon from Hufnagel "thus carrying that name 

 back to 1776." Mr. Dale should have said to 1766. The medon of 

 Esper may be the medon of Hufnagel, but Esper's type figure is not 

 our insect, the latter he figures later as medon vav. Does Mr. Dale 

 really wish the case settled by the " law of priority " ; if so, alexis 

 Scop., is the name that must be selected, but I do not agree with him 

 for I think it would be unwise to transfer a name by which one 

 common insect has been widely known to another common insect 

 which has been widely known by two other names. 



In the case of agon Mr. Dale has again fallen into the error of 

 not consulting Staudinger's addenda ; had he done so he would have 

 found that Staudinger there replaces agon and therefore that South 

 has followed Staudinger. 



Mr. Dale next says that Hubner in 1776 figured a butterfly under 

 the name of Papilio medea. This could not be, as the earliest of 

 Hubner's works is dated 1785. Then Mr. Dale represents Staudinger 

 as rejecting medea for the reason " that the medea of the Vienna 



