194 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



group under a genus. At first sight it may sometimes seem to do so, the 

 species being assorted in twos and threes, but it will be found that whether 

 the coitus embraces two or twenty species, the butterflies under it are 

 most likely such as belong to distinct genera, and sometimes so distinct 

 that one hundred or two hundred pages of Kirby's Catalogue separate 

 them. And an instance of this mis-assortment is found in the coitus 

 Brenthis. Under this head are ranged five species, viz., hecate, dictynna, 

 thore, daphne and claudia, the latter as much out of place in such company 

 as a horse in a drove of asses. But the horse is dapple and the asses are 

 dapple, each has one tail and two ears, and behold a Hiibnerian coitus ! 

 The definition of Brenthis is " the hind wings below gaily clouded, pale 

 spotted," and it is ranged under the first family of the fifth stirps. This 

 family is called Reticulata, and embraces two coitus only, viz., Phyciodes, 

 under which our tharos comes, and Brenthis. The definition of the 

 family is thus given : " The wings above striped like a grating ; the hind 

 wings below spotted with colored spots on a pale yellow ground, marked 

 with eye-like spots." Thore, an European species very much like our 

 bello?ia, and congeneric with it as myrina is with euphrosyne, is placed in 

 Brenthis, along with claudia, and these are separated from the batch 

 which includes myrina, not merely by the limits of a coitus, but of a 

 family even, in order to get them among the Reticulatce. by the side of tharos. 

 This next family, the Phalaratae, is thus defined : " The wings differently 

 spotted, the under side ornamented with pearl-colored spots." And 

 the first coitus under it is Argynnis, the definition of which is : " the hind 

 wings below variegated, spotted with shining white." Under this coitus 

 comes euphrosyne, and therefore myrina, included in this loose definition 

 solely because it has white spots. Two more coitus are made, called 

 Issoria and Acidalia, which include the larger species of Argynnis (not 

 Hiibner's), lathonia, cybele, diana, &c. Of these absurd divisions, Mr. 

 Edward Doubleday (Remarks on the genus Argynnis) says: " they are 

 so unnatural that they can in no case be adopted." 



But suppose these batches were not unnatural, but were co-extensive 

 with genera, how comes myrina, which, as it agrees with euphrosyne, is 

 placed by Hiibner under Argynnis, filling in some little degree the require- 

 ments of that coitus, to be remanded to the coitus Brenthis, which belongs 

 to another family even, placed along side of Phyciodes tharos, and the 

 requirements of which coitus it does not fill at all ? It is an unwarranted 

 use of Hiibner's name, applying it to what he expressly says it shall not 

 be applied. It is taking one of his blue taws and dropping it among the 



