112 



THE YOUNG NATURALIST. 



[Mat, 



As to Bipunctidactylus and Plagiodactylus, I think that most of us 

 have a lively recollection of the heated controversy on the question of 

 their identity, and must decline to re-open it by adopting the sugges- 

 tion of giving the verification asked for. 



In E.M.M. XVIII, p.p. 122 and 180, Dr. Jordan and Mr. C. G. 

 Barrett give their opinion that Hodgkinsoni is a variety of Loewii {Zoplio- 

 dactylus). Now, Mr. South again ignores these authorities, and without 

 even having seen Hodgkinsoni publishes his opinion that it is a form of 

 Bipunctidactyhis rather than Loewii. This may be what he calls an 

 honest attempt at elucidation, but it seems to me rather calculated to 

 result in a most uncalled for confusion. After he has seen a specimen, 

 his opinion, if still the same, may be weighed against Dr. Jordan's 

 and Mr. Barrett's, but not before. 



With regard to P. zetterstedtii the chief question seems to resolve 

 itself into a difference of opinion between Mr. South and Professor 

 Zeller. Mr. South cannot, or does not, see any difference between 

 Zetterstedtii and Gonodactylus, while Professor Zeller could or did see it. 

 Are we therefore justified at present in assuming that Mr. South is 

 right and Professor Zeller wrong ? Are we to gather from Mr'. South's 

 last contribution to the Entomologist, that Professor Zeller founded his 

 species on the single specimen referred to ? I doubt if Professor 

 Zeller was really guilty of such a thing — with species so closely allied, 

 it seems too risky as well as bold, to decide from one specimen, as 

 Mr. South seems to imply was done here ; and as Mr. South himself 

 has done with Hawortlr s Heterodactylus, and with the original Devon 

 Nemeralis, one female specimen of which he compared [Entomologist, 

 XV, p. 34,) with a solitary, and not very good Continental specimen, 

 and the conclusion immediately was drawn and published unhesitat- 

 ingly. Possibly, inspection of a representative series of Continental 

 Zetterstedtii might shake Mr. South's opinion, and if so, exit Nemoralis 

 and enter — what ? 



With regard to Teucrii, I must repeat that Heterodactylus being De 

 Villers name, we cannot re-introduce it without some real evidences 

 to show what De Viller's insect was. His description '(alis patentibus 

 fissis, nigris, maculis albis) is so vague that it might equally apply to 

 many of the group ; indeed, the word nigris would much more suit 

 Brachydactylus than Teucrii. 



Mr. South shews a very natural desire to shirk the matter, and 

 shift from himself the onus probandi, which lies on anyone who proposes 

 a change in nomenclature. His argument seems to be, that because 

 Heterodactylus of Haworth may be the same as Heterodactylus of De 



