168 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



Recently it has been shown that the classification of the Lepi- 

 doptera must be materially changed to accord with the probable 

 evolution of the families and genera. Fortunately the general 

 order of Linnaeus will not have to be greatly modified. The 

 transference of a few families and a division of the group called 

 Phalaena by Linnaeus will suffice. The studies of Meyrick, 

 Hampson, Chapman, and Tutt in England, and of Comstock, 

 Packard, Kellogg, Bodine, and the writer in America, have con 

 verged to a common general scheme, though the details still differ 

 in the conception of the several authors. This general subject 

 is so fully discussed by Tutt (Brit. Lep., I, chapter ix, 1899) that 

 I will not enter upon it further, but refer to the more special 

 work accomplished by American students. 



The last decade has seen the close of the labors of two 

 great students of the butterflies, S. H. Scudder and W. H. 

 Edwards. Dr. Scudder's work is widely recognized as most 

 excellent. It is extremely full in detail and accurate, even in 

 points to which attention had not at the time been directed. If 

 we may presume to criticise this master of his study, we would 

 say that the chief faults are, first, the use of too small characters 

 in defining genera and groups, characters which are either vari 

 able or not easily appreciated, together with a certain indefinite- 

 ness in synoptic tables which renders them difficult to use ; 

 second, generalizations from too few known species, causing 

 specific characters to appear as those of higher groups. 



Mr. Edwards has been first and foremost a describer of species. 

 He is responsible for the bulk of the specific names of North 

 American butterflies. That he carried his work too far and named 

 as species a number of forms of only varietal or racial rank is 

 probably true, yet it is difficult to point out just what names 

 should be united. The difficulty is especially apparent in the 

 genus A.rgynnis with its great variety of forms and their almost 

 imperceptible differences. Mr. Edwards named everything in 

 this genus as a species which differed, however slightly, from his 

 known specimens. Nearly everyone agrees that there are too 

 many names, but no two will agree which names are of varietal 

 rank. Mr. H. J. Elwes, of England, tried to improve the names, 

 and later Mr. A. J. Snyder has attempted the same thing. Both 

 seem to have failed. Mr. Edwards not only published descrip- 



