212 THE entomologist's record. 



Genus : PAPILIO. 



Equites. 

 Troes. 



Tros exavqjle P. E. hector, Linn., no. 2. 

 Achivos. 



Achivus example P. E. A. machaon, Linn., no. 33. 

 Helicomi. 

 Heliconii. 



Heliconius example P. H. cratsegi, Linn., no. 72. 

 Danai. 



Candidi. 



Danaus-Candidus example P. D. C. rhamni, Linn., no. 106. 

 Festiii. 



Danaus-Festivus example P. D. F. hypeiantus, Linn., no. 127. 

 Nymphales. 

 Gevnnali. 



Nymphalis-Gemmatusea-ajnpZe P. N. G. io, Linn., no. 131. 

 Phulerati. 



Phaleratus example P. N. P. urtiese, fjinn., no. 167. 

 Plebeii. 



Riir ales'. 



Euralis example P. P. E. betulae, Linn., no. 220. 

 JJrliicolae. 



Uibicola cxaiiiple P. P. U. comma, Linn., no. 2-56. 



In his English parallel to this scheme he simply notes the " Genus 

 Papilio " as the " Genus Butterfly," i.e., the " butterfly kind " (of 

 lepidoptera), or, as we might put it in current English, " Butterflies." 

 This was Barbut's opinion evidently 124 years ago of what Linne 

 meant by " Genus Papilio " ; it is mine to-day. In our modern use of 

 the term genus it appears that Barbut's application of Tros, Arhivus, Heli- 

 conius, Danaus-Candidus, Daiiaus-Festivus, Nyinphalis-Gennnatus, Phale- 

 ratus, Rvralis and Urbicola, with the "example," i.e., " type," cited 

 from Linne's work, fixes the Linnean names and their types exactly 

 in the sense of modern genera. This view is quite apart from any 

 consideration of the compound form of some of the names, which 

 were kept separate by Linne, and which I would separate as coequal 

 generically w ith sectional types, retaining the name last used by Barbut, 

 with the type declared, e.g., Candidus type rhamni, Festivus type hyper- 

 aritus, Gemviatus type io, just in fact as separated by Linne, and leaving 

 Danaus and Ni/))iphalis free for other groups of Candidi or Festivi and 

 (roiiwafi respectively. 



This is not intended to open the door for another discussion on 

 synonymy, for which we have no space, but I should be glad to have 

 any thoughts on the matter, privately, from lepidopterists who have a 

 knowledge of entomological literature, as it is proposed to bring out a 

 new work on British butterflies, and my researches so far lead me to 

 think that Scudder and the later authorities on our butterfly names, 

 have either missed many important works, or have acted very arbi- 

 trarily in their selection of names. 



:^OTES ON COLLECTING, Etc. 



Hyloicus piNASTRi STILL IN SuFFOLK. — I havc just been partially 

 successful with tlyloicus pinasiri at Aldringhaui, near Aldeburgh, and 

 have been much interested in reading your exhaustive account of this 

 species in vol. iv of British Lepidcptera. I went over on AVhit-Monday-, 

 and stayed Tuesday at Aldeburgh, and did a little harmless trespassing 

 on Mrs. Ogilvie's fine plantations at Aldringham, resulting in the find- 



