1889.] 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



in 



Our Pterophori. 



By C. A. BRIGGS. 



Mr. South having, partly in the Entomologist and partly in the last 

 number of the Young Naturalist, answered such portions of my note in 

 the March number of the Young Naturalist as he finds convenient, 

 abandons the rest as not being serious, or as he puts it, being " useless 

 chaff." Chaffing to a certain extent it was in its mode of expression, 

 but the chaff had a serious purpose underlying it, namely to protest 

 against the constant changes in the names of our Pterophori, that, 

 with such inadequate foundation, have recently been made, — so 

 hastily and yet so positively. 



Mr. South says that I am inaccurate as to facts, and consequently, 

 either insincere or ignorant. Passing over without comment these 

 somewhat unusually strong expressions, I admit that sometimes on 

 reading his papers consecutively, I fail both to grasp his process of 

 reasoning and his real conclusion, as the papers sometimes, when 

 not absolutely contradictory, are far from clear, and it is always hard 

 to remember what particular view is for the moment in the ascendant. 

 Taniadactylus, for instance, first blossomed forth as a novelty ; next it 

 was telescoped into Zetterstedtii ; now it is said to be Nemoralis, what 

 it will next be time only will shew, but each of these views was brought 

 forward at the time as a fact to be accepted, and consequently un- 

 fortunately was believed. Hence the confusion that has always hung 

 round this unlucky creature. 



Lcetus too has caused great trouble by the fluctuations of its names. 

 First the Thetford specimens are announced as Lcetus; then in October, 

 1881, and January, 1882, Dr. Jordon and Mr. Barrett agree that these 

 are Distans, and Mr. Barrett and Professor Zeller agree that Distans 

 and Lcetus are forms of the same — so far all was clear. But in 

 February, 1882, Mr. South, on the strength of his North Devon speci- 

 mens, ignores this conclusion and re-introduces to our list Lcetus as 

 a distinct species, and leaves it there till 1889, actually inserting it as 

 a species in the " Entomological List " without even a query, in spite 

 of the expressed opinions of Professor Zeller and Mr. Barrett, that 

 Distans and Lcetus were one. I confess that in the confusion caused 

 by this singular proceeding I had overlooked Mr. Barrett's remark 

 that his Folkestone specimens were identical with continental Lcetus, 

 and was under the impression that these specimens were identical 

 with the pale second-brood Brandon specimens. Now, Mr. South 

 again merges Lcetus for the present. 



