112 THE entomologist's RECORD, 



require amendment on another species of the genus being recognised. 

 The truth is, not that a genus is something in nature that wejhave to 

 discover, but that it is merely a group of species that seem to be more 

 closely allied to each other than to other neighbouring groups. It 

 should further be accepted that if such a group be inconveniently 

 large, it may be divided into several genera, that are more closely 

 allied to each other than genera, as usually accepted, are. Such 

 genera (often called sub-genera) may be accepted even if not separable 

 from each other by very crisp definition, or, as it is more usually 

 regarded, if there aie species that are more or less intermediate. Even 

 in the most "natural" genera, it should be recognised that there is 

 great room for the question of convenience and for the personal equation, 

 and that any attempt to completely eliminate these factors must fail 

 and is at the root of much of the difference of opinion that exists. 



To take an instance referred to by M. Alpheraky, the Vanessas, if 

 there were only the British species, convenience requires they shall all 

 be Vanessas, including even Pyrameis. But when we deal with the 

 species of the world it is very desirable to divide them. Equally some 

 persons may say that larval and other characters, that carry generic 

 weight elsewhere, require these species to be divided amongst several 

 genera, even if we had only the British species to deal with. There 

 is nothing in the facts themselves to say one or other of these views is 

 right. What is convenient must follow general opinion. The personal 

 equation must be dealt with by mutual toleration. 



Then follows " Observations sur les Hesperides du Genre 

 SijrichthHs." this section begins with a personal reminiscence of how great 

 a change has come over our views on many entomological questions 

 since the author became a member of the French Society more than 

 50 years ago. He relates how Rambur, in 1858, diagnosed with 

 accuracy various species of Si/rirhthus by the anatomy of their 

 genitalia, yet neither Boisduval, Duponchel, Guenee, nor Graslin, 

 though certainly well aware of Rambur's work, paid the slightest 

 attention to it, and treated it as non-existent, and that it was left 

 until the present day for Dr. Reverdin to show the soundness of 

 Rambur's position and carry the elucidation of the genus Si/)ichtJui!< 

 to the extent with which we are now all familiar. M. Oberthiir 

 praises the high merit of Rambur in being so far in advance of his 

 age, and gives full recognition and well deserved praise to the work 

 of Dr. Reverdin. He gives us, by the way, interesting reminiscences 

 of A. Constant and C. Jourdheuille, though Constant had very high 

 scientific accomplishments and was a man of much learning, and as 

 all who have met him will agree, a most amiable and instructive 

 companion, he always regarded varieties and aberrations as unworthy 

 of notice or study. 



M. Oberthiir found he and M. Jourdheuille were absolutely at 

 antipodes in this matter, M. Jourdheuille stating that he sought for 

 his collection the largest, most beautiful, and the most normal 

 specimens. After some remarks on the value of the genitalia in 

 recognition of species, the species of Si/rkhthiis are dealt with in geo- 

 graphical groups. 1. The North American group includes four species 

 of Boisduval's, of which figures are, for the first time, given in this 

 volume. 2. South America. 3. Europe, Asia, and North Africa follow, 

 the latter are subdivided into (a) Asia and Eastern Europe, and (6) 





