DIURNAL LEPIDOPTERA. 63 



APPENDIX. 



I give the de6nitions of Sections and Genera of the Hesperidje as 

 sent by Dr. Speyer, with his notes. The last three Genera were not 

 mentioned by him. It is proper to say that Dr. Speyer ascribed 

 Thymelicus, Pyrgus and Nisoniades to Hiibner, and Amblyscirtes and 

 Pholisora to Scudder. I am compelled, however, to substitute for 

 these authors the names of the first one who defined each of these 

 genera, and in the case of Thymelicus and the last two named, for 

 this reason, to Dr. Speyer himself If there has been an earlier 

 definition of Thymelicus I have not been able to find it, though 

 the name has been used by many authors from Stephens to this 

 day. Nisoniades (1816) being rejected as a coitus name, and, were 

 that not enough, for want of satisfactory definition, though it was used 

 and defined by Westwood (1852), would give way to Thanaos, Boisd. 

 (1832). Mr. Butler, who uses the coitus names liberally, nevertheless 

 employs Thanaos, Bd. with this explanation : " the genus Nisoniades 

 cannot stand, as its type is an Achylodes." Ent. Mo. Mag. 7, 07. — E. 



HESPERIDiE. 



SECTION I. 



TibifK generalh' with spines, at lea*t the niiildle ones; male always with- 

 out costal fold; usualh-, a blaek, scaleless disooidal stripe (stigtna) on fore 

 wings. 



NoTR. — I have been unable to find a sharp limit between the two principal divi- 

 sions of Hesperidae characterized by Mr. Scudder, (Buf. Bui. 1. 195), and I doubt if 

 such an one exists, unless perhaps indicated by the — not examined by myself — 

 presence or absence of the corneous sheath "at the posterior extremity of the 

 alimentary canal" in the males, which Mr. Scudder gives as a difference. The 

 costal fold, mentioned by him, is wanting in some species of his Hesperides. 

 (Pyrgus Sao, Orbi/er, etc., Thanaos Marloyi). Nevertheless though the first 

 quoted character should not be prevailing, the two tribes of Mr. Scudder seem 

 to me to possess some natural rights. Therefore I have tried at least to indicate 

 them. It seemed to me most natural to begin the series with those genera which 

 are related to the bulk of the other Rhopalocera by the non-existence of the 

 tibial ej)iphysis and the spurs on the middle tibiae; the more as there exists no 

 costal fold. I will not contend that this arrangement is the most natural; such 



