128 ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. [April, '03 



Entomological Literature. 



A LIST OF THE NORTH AMERICAN LEPIDOPTERA AND KEY TO THE LIT- 

 ERATURE OF THIS ORDER OF INSECTS. By Harrison G. Dyar, Ph. 

 D , Custodian of Lepidoptera United States National Museum, 

 assisted by C. H. Fernald, Ph. D., the late Rev. George D. Hulst 

 and August Busck. 



This is an exceedingly valuable work and has been most carefully com- 

 piled, and there are but few serious omissions. It will be found indis- 

 pensable to workers in' the order Lepidoptera. Each species is given a 

 number and the varieties are consecutively lettered. There are 652 spe- 

 cies of Rhopalocera listed, whereas my Synonymic Catalogue (1898) 

 contains 645 species. Dr. Dyar used 158 genera, whereas my late cata- 

 logue contains 65. The average, therefore, in Dr. Dyar's list is about 

 one genus to a little over four species in the butterflies. I do not cen- 

 sure the author of the list for having followed the literature as he found 

 it, and sincerely congratulate him on producing a work of such excel- 

 lence, but I do believe that taking the genera as a whole in the Lepidop- 

 tera, especially in the Rhopalocera, they are unphilosophical, unscientific, 

 absurd and "densely horrible, " like the boiling oil mentioned in the 

 opera of Mikado. These remarks only apply in part to the genera them- 

 selves, but refer also to the correlation of the species under them. There 

 are several causes for this condition of affairs, such as the niihi itch, want 

 of knowledge of the significance and value or lack of value of anatomi- 

 cal characters ; workers in various parts of the world describing genera 

 without reference to the species of the world and ignorance of the value 

 or lack of value in the genera as a scheme of sub-classification. Why 

 not erect a genus for each species and then drop them all and get back 

 to the species, the unit of classification. Let us take a look into the list 

 and see how the genera appear from a logical standpoint. 



The old genus Papilio is divided into Iphidicles for aja.v and . sino-n ; 

 Leerlias ior philenor and Ithobalus for acanda and polydamas. Acanda 

 is very closely related \.o philenor and may even be only a geographical 

 race of it, yet we find them in different genera. Now what have we left 

 under Papilio ? Why logically from the standpoint of modern genera a 

 conglomerate. Ajax is probably more nearly related to many in Papilio 

 than daunus is to indra. How do cresphontinus and machaon compare 

 in view of the segregation of some of the species under the three genera 

 other than Papilio ? 



It would take a large volume to do this subject justice, so we must not 

 tarry too long in one place, so therefore skip Semnoppsyche and Speyeria. 

 It may be of some interest to know that Lanonia* 'appi o.vinia/a Strecker 

 is a synomym of Schuenis arachne Edwards. 



