THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



second median branch and cubitus. Tliis feature is sliared by Phycioifcs, 

 which differs by its frailer wings. In all these types of the Melitcea 

 series, the second radial branch has passed the point of juncture of the 

 crossvein and arises from the radius at a point near where the appressed 

 branch leaves the main vein in Argynnis. Thus the Melitcea series is 

 more specialized than the Argynnis series, in which the second branch 

 leaves the radius before the crossvein. The genera, except Phyciodes, 

 separated by Mr. Scudder from Melitcea — i. e., Lemonias, Euphydryas — 

 are all invalid from the neuration and texture of the wing. 



There remains to discuss the genus Etiptoieta. This is a specialized 

 type, as shown by the passage of the second radial branch beyond the 

 cell and by the open cell of secondaries. It seems to lead to Agratilis 

 vanillce, Co/cenis Julia and Dione Juno, in which the first radial branch 

 has followed suit and the " long-wing " butterfly type is assumed. I 

 differ from authors in considering these as Nymphalid or Argynnid types 

 and not as related to the Limnads (Anosia tnenippe, etc.), and the "long- 

 wing " type of Helicotiius, in which latter the residuary features of pri- 

 maries are tjuite apparent and the cells on both wings are closed. 



Butterfly Lists. — A puzzled correspondent, who has been collect- 

 ing and studying the butterflies of his own region of country for a score 

 of years, has begun the preparation of a catalogue. At the outset he 

 finds himself confronted with the difiicult question as to what order he 

 shall adopt in the arrangement of families and genera. He writes as fol- 

 lows : "I learned the sequence of genera, etc., from Mr. W. H. Edwards' 

 plan, but I notice that every later author makes a plan of his own as to 

 which genus precedes or follows. Now, probably no two men would 

 exactly agree as to the sequence of genera, etc., but ought not all to agree 

 as closely as possibly, to avoid confusion, and not to place stumbling- 

 blocks in the way of the learner ? " . . . . " Also, as to the division of one 

 genus into several, there is a similar difficulty. For instance, Mr. Ed- 

 wards' genus Pamphila contained over eighty species ; Dr. Holland 

 divides it mto several genera, yet I doubt if any average Lepidopterist can 

 separate the species according to Holland. Of what use, then, is the 

 division, especially to a beginner? Simply, it is confusion." .... "We 

 should have a law, written or unwritten, forbidding any change either 

 in the alteration of old names, or the addition of new ones, without the 

 approval of a committee of competent men." 



Our correspondent will assuredly have a large number of sympathiz- 

 ers. Every entomologist groans over the incessant changes in nomencla- 

 ture that are being made. Some, no doubt, are justifiable and necessary, 

 but very many are not and have soon to give way to others. It is high 

 time that an " Entomologists' Union " should be formed to settle such 

 questions as these, as urged by Mr. Lyman in his Presidential address 

 of 1S98. 



