THE BRITISH NATURALIST. [Dfxember 



is very similar to that of E. tnedea. Linnaeus describes it correctly 

 enough in " Syst. Nat. Ed. X.," p. 473, No. 97, and more fully in 

 " Fn. Suec. Ed. alt.," p. 275, No. 1050. In the former he gives as a 

 reference " Alb. ins. t. 5. f. 1." Albin's fifth plate contains figures of 

 Thecla betulce and T. mbi only, the former, which occupies the upper 

 portion of the plate, bearing the number 7 ; moreover Albin figures no 

 Satyrid except E. ianira. If Linnseus mistook a figure of T. betula for 

 E. ligea, his other references must surely be received with caution. 

 Mr. Dale himself at p. 48 of his book points out an erroneous reference 

 in connection with C. phlceas. 



The argument from the Linnaean Cabinet I give up. I have now 

 inspected that Cabinet for myself and am quite convinced that no 

 reliance can be placed on its testimony. Some of the insects in it 

 must have been placed there after it reached this country in 1788. 



Mr. Dale adds another argument to the following effect : Linnaeus 

 includes his hyale in " Fn. Suec", therefore it cannot be identical with 

 our hyale, for M. Schizen (? Schoyen) does not include the latter insect 

 among the Rhopalocera of Norway. Now, in the first place, this is 

 much as if one were to say an insect cannot be British because it does 

 not occur in Scotland. That our hyale is not found in Norway, 

 Scandinavian authorities are agreed. Through the kindness of Mr. 

 W. F. Kirby, I have been able to refer to a fair number of them. The 

 earlier ones, Thunberg and Dalman, speak only of hyale and palaeno, 

 and may be reckoned as on Mr. Dale's side. Wallengren, as I am 

 informed by Mr. Kirby, gives both hyale and edusa as doubtfully 

 reputed to occur in Gothland. Sven Lampa in a list of Scandinavian 

 Lepidoptera published in the " Entomologisk Tidskrift " for 1885 

 (p. 11), and Aurivillius in his systematic work " Nordens Fjarilar " 

 (p. 6), include both hyale and edusa and give numerous Swedish 

 localities for both species. Here again then it is evident that Mr. 

 Dale did not carry his enquiries far enough. 



Mr. Dale declines to admit his error with regard to the Hubner 

 date, sheltering himself behind a statement of Edward Newman in the 

 " Zoologist," and hinting that Newman may have known more of 

 entomological bibliography than I do. That is very likely, but he 

 certainly did not know more on the subject than Dr. Hagen or 

 Werneburg, who made it their special study. Both in the " Bibliotheca 

 Entomologica " of the former, and in the " Beitrage zur Schmetter- 

 lingskunde " of the latter, 1785 is given as the date of the earliest 

 work of Hubner. 



Into the new matter introduced by Mr. Dale in his second reply 

 I will not attempt to enter. There is one other point however to- 

 which I must allude. Throughout his papers there is abundant 

 evidence that one of the canons of nomenclature which Mr, Dale 



