2oo THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



most common of them in the environs of Paris is P. alexis. Therefore, 

 if Lyccena be used as the generic name of the Blues, it is best for 

 Polyommatus not to be used at all. Surely Dr. Buckell cannot have 

 read what I have stated on page 146 of the current volume : " To my 

 mind the law of usage ought to override the law of priority " ; or he 

 would not have included me in the ranks of what Mr. Robson once 

 called the " resurrection men." 



With regard to minimus, Fuessl., Dr. Buckell seems to ignore the 

 fact that it is not the smallest of even European Butterflies. He 

 states truly that the law of priority was not formulated at the time of 

 Esper and Fuessli's works. I think it is a great pity that it ever was 

 formulated at all. Suppose such a rule was formulated in regard to 

 the names of London and our other English towns. What would 

 happen ? A state of confusion. Such has been the case (and perhaps 

 now is) in " Entomological Nomenclature." 



Dr. Buckell says the earliest of Hubner's works is dated 1785. 

 Edward Newman (see " Zoologist," Vol. XXX., p. 3131) says that 

 Hubner, in 1776, figured a butterfly as Papilla medea. Possibly 

 Mr. Newman knew of an earlier work of Hubner than Dr. Buckell 

 does, and I may not have erred in following Newman. But 

 is y^thiops, Esp., the same as Medea, Hub., or Blandina, Fab. ? 

 Several of the old authors consider it to be identical with Medusa or 

 Ligea. De Villers gives both /Ethiops-major and JEthiops -minor. The 

 former is considered identical with Ligea, the latter with Cassiope. 

 Staudinger gives MoIvcb, L., as being identical with Alveolus, Hub. 

 Linnaeus describes Malvce thus — " 267, P.P. alis denticulatis divaricatis 

 nigris albo maculatis. Habitat in Malva, Althaea." Does this agree 

 with our Spotted Skipper ? The larva of which feeds on Rubus, 

 Genista, and allied plants. It is more probably Alcece, Fab., Lavatherce, 

 Esp. Staudinger supercedes Linea, W.V., with Thaumas, Hum., 1766. 

 Sylvestris, Poda., 1761, appears to me to be a still older name for it. 

 But why should not Linea be retained as the most suitable name for 

 the species ? If Linea be altered to Thaumas, what becomes of Lineola? 

 Alter it to Thaumaseola ? It was once asked if Dietcea was to be altered 

 into Tremula, whether Dictaoides was to be altered into Tvcmulceoides, see 

 " Entomologist's Monthly Magazine," Vol. VIII., p. 95. Staudinger 

 gives Cossus as both the generic and specific name of the Goat Moth. 

 Here is a stupid instance of the law of priority being enforced. It 

 ought either to be : — * 



Cossus, Fab., 1794. 

 ligniperda, Fab., 1794. 

 or 



Xylentes, Htib., 1816. 

 cossus, Linn., 1758. 



