MR. BETHUNE-BAKER ON THE GENUS LYC.ENOPSIS. 203' 



been correctly identified by American entomologists ; I can see no 

 difference between Texan and Californian specimens before me, so 

 imagine that fea, Edw., described from Texan material, is correctly 

 listed as a synonym. 



In conclusion I would point out that there is still a great deal of 

 very careful work necessary before the synonymy of our N. American 

 Lycaenidae is straightened out ; thanks to M. Oberthiir we are now 

 able to definitely fix the nimotypieal form of Boisduval's species ; Behr's 

 types being all destroyed, leaves us only his short and often inadequate 

 Latin diagnoses to fall bcick upon, but fortunately he has stated his 

 type localities more definitely than Boisduval, so that material from 

 these regions will probably be of aid in definite fixation ; Reakirt's so- 

 called types are in the Strecker Collection in Chicago and will have to 

 be studied carefully ; Edwards' species will probably cause the most 

 confusion as the material which served for a number of his earlier des- 

 criptions is apparently not contained in his collection in Pittsburg and 

 may have been returned to the original owners, or lost ; if we add to 

 this the unfortunate habit that Edwards had of not labelling his types 

 and of misidentifying his own species at a later date and incorrectly 

 labelling them in his collection as it now stands, one can form some 

 idea of the difficulties to be encountered in a study of the Lycaenidae. 

 It is a source of great surprise to me that some of our so-called special- 

 ists in Diurnal Lepidoptera have for years been content to leave the 

 nomenclature in this unsatisfactory condition ; fifteen years ago, when 

 most of the authors of a large portion of our names were still alive, it 

 w^ould have been a much simpler matter to locate the types, or at least 

 obtain definite niformation concerning them, but this, alas, has been 

 neglected, and we poor unfortunates of a later generation are left to 

 solve the problems as best, or as badly as, we may, giving our own 

 personal mterpretation to the descriptions and paving the way for long 

 and futile discussions on nomenclature in the journals, constant 

 shifting of names, and corresponding disgust on the part of economic 

 and practical entomologists who care less for the law of priority than 

 they do for a stable system of nomenclature. 



Mr. Bethune-Baker on the genus Lycaenopsis. 



By T. A. CHAPMAN, M.D. 



I wish to say a word as to how Mr. Bethune-Baker treats my 

 statements as to the genera Lj/caowpsia, (Jyaniris, and Celaatrina (in 

 the Froc. Zool. Soc, 1909, p. 419), in his " Synonymic notes on the 

 RuniUdae " in Ent. Ilec, vol. xxvi., p. 162. 



I have a dim idea that he is poking fun at me, but being a Scotch- 

 man, I fear I shall need a surgical operation to enable me to see the 

 point of the joke. 



He interprets me as meaning that if /iaraldn.'< to which the generic 

 name Lycaenopsis was given, be not congeneric with aryioUts, then the 

 generic name Lycae)iopsis is to leave haraldus and attach to aryiolns. 

 If such a thesis commended itself to me, my intelligence must be so 

 low, that my not seeing the joke is comprehensible. 



If I might, in such suspicious circumstances, venture on a vague 



