144 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



considered as the equivalent I believe that Fabricius' use of the term 

 Papilio will not allow us to follow Mr. Scudder's. I remain of the opinion 

 that the older writers before Schrank sufficiently expressed their ideas as 

 to the typical section of the genus, and that the term should be used for a 

 genus of which the European P. machaon is the type. As we cannot use 

 Fugonia, Hubn., of which angelica, Cramer, is the type, I propose the term 

 Scudderia for the Pap. antiopa of Linnaeus. 



12. Aglais Dalm. — This I think we may adopt without hesitation 

 and be thankful for the pretty name. 



13. Vanessa, Fabr. 14. Junonia, Hubn. 15. Euptoieta, Doubl. — 

 The values of these terms have not been altered. The seven genera 

 among which our frittillaries are divided, I think we must agree are 

 tenable. To Euphydryas I refer Melitcea chalcedon, Boisd., from Cali- 

 fornia. 



23. Libythea, Fabr. — We are unfeignedly glad Kirtland's term is 

 retained and that we are not to be vexed by another of Boisduval and 

 Leconte's unfulfilled intentions. 



24. Calephelis, G. &■> R. — Mr. Scudder uses erroneously Poly- 

 stichtis. In the Verzeichniss, Hubner identifies with an exclamation mark 

 Papilio fatima, Cram., 271, A. B., and regards this as the type of 

 Polystichtis. It is from Surinam. Our two species from the Atlantic 

 District are generically distinct from the S. American forms. Hubner 

 considers that "Pap. cereus" of Linn, is this species of Cramer's, and 

 prefers that name, but this identification may not be correct. Retain 

 Polystichtis for the S. American forms, but there is no excuse for stating 

 that " Papilio ccenius " is the " type " of Polystichtis. We were familiar 

 with Hubner some time ago. We doubt that Linnaeus intended our N. 

 pumila under his " cereus," " cerea," or " ccenius." We propose to 

 designate our two species as Cal. pumila and C. borealis. 



So far as we have proceeded some few generic changes seem impos- 

 sible to be avoided. Many of Hubner's genera are excellently well 

 limited (e. g. Nisoniades), even according to our present views. Perhaps 

 it is not hazarding too much to say that his genera are not in the present 

 state of science, more incongruous than those of any one author of or- 

 before his time. It is difficult to say on what plea we shall ignore him. 

 The prejudice has been strong that has hitherto neglected him. 



As we must adopt Oeneis, Hubner, we propose the term Calloencis as 



