64 
REVIEWS. 
temperature of the seasons in different years must, more or less, affect its 
accuracy; but still to know, within a week, when to look for freshly- 
evolved specimens of valuable insects, is knowledge not to be despised. 
From the character of the work, little controversy of any kind is to be 
expected; but, on two occasions, Mr. Morris does battle vigorously—the 
one being in support of the claims of Papilio podalirius to be accounted a 
native species; the other, in refutation of the imputations cast by “ certain 
malignants” on the character of Mr. Weaver, the original capturer of the 
Melitasa dia. As to the former, we should have thought that few persons 
would now have ventured to deny to Papilio podalirius a place among our 
native fauna; but if there be any such remaining, and they are open to 
conviction, Mr. Morris’s array of “ facts” and proofs from ocular evidence 
ought to silence the tongue of suspicion for ever. And for Mr. Weaver, 
we think it a disgrace to English entomologists that any further defence 
should be needed; right and proper it is that all care should be exercised 
in admitting the claims of a previously-undiscovered species; but when 
the only obstacle to receiving it is, that people choose not to be convinced, 
and their only answer to unanswerable and reiterated proofs is, that an 
upright and honest man is forging a series of “unblushing falsehoods,” 
we confess we would not waste another word on them; for they do not 
deserve any notice. If they think it less likely that a new British butter¬ 
fly should be discovered than that a man of unblemished honour should 
tell a parcel of lies, we can only say, “ Oh, infidel, great is thy faith.” 
In regard to the species admitted or rejected, Mr. Morris proceeds 
rather arbitrarily, at least in the suppression of the reasons of his selection, 
which ought to have been given— e.g ., at the close of his remarks on 
Pontia, Catophaga, Papilio, Ganoris or Pieris, Brassiere (we are obliged to 
give all the generic names, as Mr. Morris has not informed us which he 
himself has adopted, and we do not wish to choose for him), he briefly 
adds—“ Some have imagined a separate species under the name of Pontia 
chariclea;” but there is not a syllable of information as to whether this 
species differs from Brassiere in size, colour, markings, form or neuration of 
wings, times of appearance, habits or appearance of larvae, or in any other 
way; nor does he say who the “ some” are, nor why he dissents from 
their “ imagination.” In a somewhat similar manner he speaks of a 
“ variety” of Pontia (&c., &c., &c., &c., as before) Napi, “ erroneously 
made into a species under the name of 1 Pontia sabellicae,’ ” except 
that in this case he enumerates the points of difference, though he makes 
no further observation on it. No allusion, however slight, is made to Par- 
nassius Apollo, though its claims are so very slender that Mr. Morris 
