110 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [April, '06 



On Dr. Dyar's Review of the Hesperidae. 

 BY HENRY SKINNER. 



Dr. Dyar has published in the Journal of the New York 

 Entomological Society >! A Review of the Hesperidae of the 

 United States. The value of the paper is greatly impaired by 

 the lack of sub-family definitions, and it is impossible for any- 

 one not familiar with the sub-families to use the keys to the 

 genera the author gives. Nearly the whole classification of 

 the Hesperidse is based on the presence or absence of the costal 

 fold, a male secondary sexual character. The females there- 

 fore must work out their own salvation. This costal fold ap- 

 pears to be distributed through the family in a most arbitrary 

 way and in closely related species one will have it and the 

 other not. Unfortunately it has not been used in a logical 

 manner for generic separation. The two species, bathyllus 

 Abbott & Smith, and pylades Scudder, are remarkably close 

 specifically, yet bathyllus is the type of Thorybes Scudder and 

 pylades the type of Cocceius Godmau & Salvin. Cocceius is based 

 on the presence of a costal fold in the male. The logic and the 

 beauty of this is seen from the fact that in the genus Eudamus, 

 simplicius Stoll has a costal fold while dorantes Stoll lacks it. 

 Why are they not different genera ? This fact invalidates Dr. 

 Dyar's first key and makes such a classification absurd. The 

 genus Cogia Butler is based on another secondary sexual char- 

 acter, the presence of a pencil of hairs near the abdominal fold 

 of the secondaries. The species appear to be more nearly 

 related to species in the other genera as segregated. PJurdinus 

 caicus Herrich-Schaeffer, moschus Edws. , is so close specifically 

 to bathyllus that they are frequently confounded yet they are 

 placed in different genera. The same may be said of bathyllus 

 and pylades. The writer does not admit that a single second- 

 ary sexual character proves their non-relationship. In passing 

 it is noted that in the Biologia, caicus H. S. and moschus Ed- 

 wards, while not specifically separated, are said to differ by 

 the latter being lighter in color, palpi whiter and hyaline spots 

 larger, yet they separate Pyrrhopyga arizoncs and P. ara.vcs 



Vol. XIII, p. in. 



