I8 9 4.] 



THE BRITISH NATURALIST. 



On Aciptilia Migadactyla, Haw. (= Spilodactyla, Curt.). — Mr. Dale has 

 been unfortunate in his discussions lately, and I have had to complain elsewhere that 

 he does not keep himself an fait with the science he attempts to ornament. What- 

 ever on earth has the dictionary meaning of the word " original " to do with my usage 

 of the word in relation to its context, and still further, what has such a quibble to do 

 with science or common-sense. Naturalists have adopted a very wise rule that the 

 earliest name of a species given with a description or figure of that species which is 

 recognisable shall be the name of that species. Fabricius gave a short description of 

 a white "plume" moth which he named migadactyla and a few years afterwards 

 Haworth describing only British species believed he recognised in this description a 

 British species. He therefore quotes the original description of Fabricius, applies it 

 to the British species but extends that description by references to its habitat 

 etc. Many years afterwards Haworth's species is described under another name 

 (spilodactyla) by Curtis and then Wocke (than anyone more ignorant of British species 

 outside this country it is more difficult to imagine) probably misled* by Wood, who had 

 erroneously figured ochrodactyla as migadactyla, immediately concluded that Haworth's 

 migadactyla referred to ochrodactyla also, and put it so in the Catalog. But this was 

 impossible since Haworth had already distinguished ochrodactyla from migadactyla. 

 This error led me to search the matter out and it is clear enough until Haworth is 

 reached. But although I have been studying Continental '• plumes" for many years, I 

 do not set myself up as a ciitic of Continental species. Therefore I say " I have left 

 entirely out of account the Fabrician migadactyla, as there may be a white 

 Continental (not Britisli) species, to which the description might apply, but 

 that does not influence Haworth's use of the name for our species." 

 Surely this is a fair and square statement of facts as far back as I can 

 follow the subject. Now if Mr. Dale has any knowledge of Fabricius (personally 

 or from books) and can become a critic behind that point where I leave off 

 I shall be pleased to say that migadactyla, Haw. is migadactyla, Fab. On the face 

 of the description alone I think it very probable, but (and this is the factor 

 which deterred me from feeling certain that this was so) it is quite possible 

 for a short diagnosis to comprise two or even more species, and be an 

 equally good (or bad) description of either or each, and yet, from incomplete- 

 ness or some other factor the differentiation of any one of the species 

 may be impossible, and this I feel may be the case with the Fabrician description. 

 When Haworth copies a previous description and exten... its application it appears 

 to me common sense to suppose that he becomes responsible for its usage so 

 far as he accepts it for his own species, i.e., the one before him and of which he is 

 writing and to assume otherwise would land us into endless muddle or difficulty. I 

 may state that I myself gave Mr. Dale the clue on which he has based his paragraph 

 vide, ante p. 8, where I write " Fab." I cannot imagine otherwise that Mr. Dale 

 would have known anything about the matter. One other point I would like to ask 

 Mr. Dale. He says : — "Moreover he did not name and describe a species as migadactylus, 

 but merely copied Fabricius." This is true as far as it goes but Haworth did describe 

 a species under migadactyla, first quoting Fabricius' diagnosis and then further 

 describing in his own words its relations to allied species, habitat etc. which Fabricius 

 apparently did not know ; and then he goes on to say " Moreover, he Haworth did not 

 possess spilodactylus, Curt." Now if this be meant for a joke I must con- 

 gratulate Mr. Dale on the depth of his wit, but if it be a genuine solid statement I 

 would really ask Mr. Dale in what part of the Shades he meets the spirit of Mr. 

 Haworth to discuss what the latter had in his collection at the beginning of the 



"This word " misled " is scored out. 



—Eds. 



