THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 141 



Since its pviblicalion in iSgt, Prof. J. B. Smith's List has been 

 generally adopted, and most collections are labelled in accordance with it. 

 Some changes in generic names have here and there been accepted, and 

 specific names have in various cases been dropped into synonymy, their 

 places being taken by others whose authority has been established. These 

 changes, however, have not been numerous, and their propriety has 

 usually been made evident. In the new List, to take the butterflies alone, 

 we find that Dr. Dyar gives 652 species, and divides them into no less 

 than 158 genera. Dr. Skinner's List, in 1898, gave 645 species and 65 

 genera, and Prof. Smith's, 640 species and 74 genera. While the number 

 of species has been very slightly increased, the number of genera is more 

 than doubled. 



These generic names, set forth by Dr. Dyar, are, for the most part, 

 tiiose of Hubner and Dr. Scudder. Thirty years ago controversy raged 

 over the adoption of Hubner's names and those contained in Dr. 

 Scudder's " Systematic Revision of some of the North American 

 Butterflies." Mr. W. H. Edwards, author of the magnificent work on 

 " The Butterflies of North America," led what may be called the 

 conservative party, while those who favoured the revolution ranged 

 themselves under the banner of Dr. Scudder. In process of time the 

 conflict died out, and many of the names so strongly objected to were 

 adopted by common consent, while others were dropped, even by Dr. 

 Scudder himself in his subsequent grand work on " The Butterflies of the 

 Eastern United States and Canada." In the List before us. Dr. Dyar has 

 not implicitly followed Dr. Scudder's final work, but has made a certain 

 number of changes even from it. He may be abundantly justified by 

 " the laws of priority " in nearly all that he has done — we cannot pretend 

 to have such a knowledge of the literature as would permit us to deny it 

 — but it seems a pity that genera should be split up where structural 

 differences do not require it, merely because Hubner set forth a variety of 

 names more than a century ago. 



The list is admirably printed, and provides a most welcome reference 

 to the literature of the subject in the case of every genus and species, but 

 we must complain that no mention is made of the familiar generic names 

 that have been dropped, which surely might have been recorded as 

 synonyms. Such old-established names as Pieris, Colias, Melitsea, 

 Grapta, Pyrameis, Lycsena, Callimorpha, Hjdicecia and others have 

 disappeared, and are not even to be found in the very comprehensive 



