THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 128 



mologists, act at ro for instance, prefer their living nursery language to 

 the dead one from the tombs. And we are well counselled to remember 

 the little ones always ! What would I not have given to have known the 

 common names for our insects on Staten Island in the fifties ' 



What Mr. Maynard may choose to call our butterflies cannot be 

 thrown up against Mr. Scudder, who, as I understand it, has merely pro- 

 posed corresponding titles for our butterflies with those used in England, 

 as the " Blues " and " Coppers," using these names in somewhat of a 

 generic sense and supplying some fresh titles of his own, whether 

 fortunately or not, I am not here enquiring. This is a matter subject to 

 a later review on occasion. Certainly we must be guided by some gen- 

 eral agreement with English names in use in England for similar but 

 different species, and this without a too vigorous enquiry. Certain 

 hairy caterpillars in England (and in Germany also) are called ■' Bears " 

 (I don't know what brings Bacon's curious sentence, " the body of nature 

 is elegantly and with deep judgment depicted hairy," etc., into my mind), 

 and there are certain common names used in a generic way from re- 

 semblances occurring to the casual observer. These we must use, and 

 for my part I think that, in a natural way, we shall come into using 

 certain common names as collecting becomes popular among the young 

 and as popular books increase with us. 



Far more than on this head am I concerned about Mr. Scudder's 

 proposed book on our butterflies. I think there is a mean between Mr. 

 Scudder's Latin nomenclature and that of Mr. Edwards, which latter is 

 based on Doubleday's, and perhaps since Doubleday we may have 

 advanced in our knowledge as to the structure of butterflies, and are 

 authorized to e.xpress this advance in our Latin names. It is many 

 years ago since Mr. Robinson and I set about classifying our Diurnals, 

 and this was before Mr. Scudder's classification. I only published about 

 that time the genera Feniseca and Calephelis, and as these are not 

 objected to, I think that what I here say, with great diffidence, is entitled 

 to some consideration on both sides. I am quite satisfied, and was 

 before Mr. Scudder, that our Hackberry butterflies, celtis, clyto?i, etc., 

 do not belong to the European genus Apatura, and that the structural 

 characters separating the two are real and of generic value. Also am I 

 of opinion that our eastern arthemis, ursttia, disippus, eros, form a group 

 of themselves, distinct from Limenitis proper, and that Mr. Scudder's 



