20 GROTE — SPECIALIZATIONS OF LEPIDOPTEROUS WING. [Jan. 21, 



tion. Nomenclature itself belongs to letters and is part of the 

 machinery which biologists must use to work with. And we may 

 remember here the fact that we possess no entire and satisfactory 

 definition for the term i?tdividual as used in biology. So that it 

 perhaps naturally follows that we are at a loss to define adequately 

 groups or associations of which the individual forms the unit. 

 The following notes explain the changes made by me in 



The Nomenclature of the Pieri-Nymphalid^. 



Agapetidce. — I use this term instead of Satyridae because the 

 generic title Satyrus Latreille is preoccupied (Scudder, /. ^., 265), 

 and is properly replaced by the title Agapetes Bilberg, 1820 (/. c, 

 104), with the same type, A. galathea. It is impossible to separate 

 the name of a higher group from that of the genus upon which it is 

 based. If Satyrus properly falls then Satyridae must also go. But 

 the type of Satyrus remains and the new generic title of this type by 

 natural right replaces the old title in all its various modifications. 

 It appears that the more modern title Satyrid^ replaces the Satyri 

 of older authors who antedate the Tentamen in the use of a plural 

 form, thus in recognizing a group or family in our sense. In addi- 

 tion the term Oreas (Oreades) used by Hiibner in 1806 is itself pre- 

 occupied. So that the claim of Agapetidae to designate the family, 

 with Agapetes galathea as its type, seems indisputable. Arge of 

 Esper and also of Hiibner would be preoccupied by Schrank 

 (/. c, 117). 



LimiiadidcB.—'Y\\^ earliest plural form applied particularly to a 

 member of this group is Limnades of Hiibner, 1806, based upon 

 Li7nnas chrysippiis as type. This must, therefore, replace the term 

 Danaidae of modern writers, a term based upon the later Danaus {ptex- 

 ippus) of Latreille, 1809, for which Scudder proposes to retain Dan- 

 aidaof the same author of 1805 (/. c, 153), perhaps disputably, since 

 Latreille's change seemed warranted at that time. Once a synonym 

 always a synonym. In any case the modern Danaidse cannot claim 

 any connection directly with the JDanaifesiivi, etc., of Linne, since 

 that group had no legal standing ; no genus of that name upon 

 which it could be based having been published. Cuvier's similar 

 use of " Danai " included also the Pieridce (/. c, 154), and, there- 

 fore, Limnadidse has a clear right to recognition. 



N. B. — I take the opportunity here to change my term Capis to 

 Capisella since there is an earlier genus, Capys of Hewitson, which 



