4: WM. n. EDWARDS. 



I have followed the recomniendation of the Committee of the British 

 Aspociation of 1842, by j;iving the terminations of family and sub- 

 family names in t'dse and iufe^ a practice very generally adopted since 

 that day and both simple and convenient. 



And I have aimed at presenting the genera, at least as far as 

 Hesperidaj, as nearly as possible as they existed thirty years ago, 

 when Doubleday's great work was published, in which each genus 

 was carefully and elaborately defined. This was before the tendency 

 towards incorporating the whole of Iliibner's bekaunter Schmetterlinge 

 into the nomenclature began to prevail, or creating genera by whole- 

 sale by mere indication of types, without definition, or encroaching 

 on the rights of species by creating vSo-called genera on infinitesimal 

 dilferences. 



The Rules adopted at Buffalo have in great degree delivered us 

 from these evils. If genera are founded in nature, then nature 

 should be followed, and a compact group like Parnassius, Colias, 

 Callidryas, Argynnis, should receive a genus name. And if sub- 

 divisions be desirable for the sake of convenience, in the genera which 

 have numerous species, they should be divided into sections. 8uch 

 sections whether natural or artificial are not genera. Nevertheless it 

 has been the fashion of late to split up a genus into numerous, co-equal, 

 so-called genera, with no clue in their several names to their relation- 

 ship. If genera are artificial creations, made for convenience, it must 

 be in the last degree improper that they should be multiplied so as to 

 overwhelm the science, and bury it out of sight. I follow the example 

 of Doubleday and Boisduval in this matter. 



And as a first step in the much needed reform, I strike out the 

 name of Hiibner wherever it is appended to a genus, neither believing 

 Iliibner's coitus to be genera, nor even could they be so held, that 

 they received from Iliibner satisfactory definition. Doubleday intro- 

 duced a few of these coitus names for his own genera, and out of 

 courtesy attached the letters '■ Hiib." to them. His example has 

 finally led to the wholesale displacement of his own name and the 

 names of his associates, and of the many distinguished lepidopterists 

 of the last two generations, by the accrediting a large proportion of the 

 existing genera to Hiibner. I have shown elsewhere (Can. Ent. vol. 8), 

 the injustice of these proceedings, iin 1 refuse to be a party to them. In 

 every case, the genus in this Catalogue is, or is intended to be. credited 

 to the author who first proposed and described it, and courtesy gives 

 place to justice. 



It remains to speak of the arrangement of the Hesperidas. Mr. 



