SPHINX PINASTRI AS A BRITISH INSECT. 219 



any rate, Suffolk is not clear of an indictment for a direct, 

 and so far successful, attempt at the early date of 1880 or 

 1881, to plant Sphin.v piiiaHii there ; and this, as it seems to me, must 

 throw strong suspicion on the genuineness of any subsequent occurrence 

 of the species in Suffolk. On the general question of planting British 

 localities with Continental specimens, I have a strong opinion ; but 

 where it is done, at any rate, let us know all about it. To do it for the 

 purpose of deceiving the entomological world is as reprehensible an act 

 as one can well imagine ; if for any other purpose, it seems to be a foolish 

 mistake, and can hardly result in anything but confusion, and an 

 injury to entomological science ; if, however, we knoAv the fact, we 

 know then how we stand. 



The Genera in the Sub=family Lycaenlnae applied to British Species. 



By J. W. TUTT, F.E.S. 



The species included in the Lyc.exin.e have long been divided into 

 the three Tvihes—Chr!/s(ij)/ia)ii(U, Li/raenhU and ThecUdi. These Tribes 

 were long since broken up into well-characterised genera by Scudder*-"' 

 and other authors. British authors, however, have simply applied 

 these tribal divisions as if they were genera, and called all the 

 Chrysophanidi by one generic name {Chri/sophamis or Lijcaena), the 

 Lyc.enidi by another (Li/caena or Pohiommatm), and the Theclidi by a 

 third [Theda], and this has been done in spite of the knowledge that 

 there are great structural differences in the ova, larvte, pups and 

 imagines of each Tribe, differences quite as important as those on 

 which the genera of other Tribes have been based. These genera are 

 well recognised among all but purely British lepidopterists, and to 

 argue that species belonging to different evolutionary generic groups 

 should be lumped under one name because we have so few species in 

 Britain is not only absurd, but insulting to the intelligence of 

 the British lepidopterist, who is tacitly assumed to be less capable of 

 understanding the subject he studies than are foreign lepidopterists. To 

 suppose that all British lepidopterists do not recognise the differences 

 between Zcphi/nis betulae and Theda ir-albnm, between Cyanirh 

 aiylolus and Poh/ommatiis coft/don, etc., from their earliest entomo- 

 logical infancy, is ridiculous. 



In order to get a working system I have attempted to correlate the 

 genera used by Scudder and Kirby. I disagree absolutely with the 

 manner in which many names, often without description, have been 

 resurrected by them, and changed from their original uses, but to find 

 a working basis have accepted their conclusions, and attempted to under- 

 stand their differences. Both authors appear to work on similar lines, and 

 yet in going over the same facts, the personal equation results in a 

 disagreement in five cases out of eleven. I am much obliged to Mr. 

 Kirby for a very full explanation of his position, and for the facts on 

 which the work relating to this subject, in his 2nd vol. of the Xatnralists' 

 Libra ri/ is based, but even on his own rule propounded as follows : — 

 " If no type is specified by the original author, or fixed by later use, 

 then I hold that the last species not taken out of the genus, to be 

 placed in a later one, is the ' residuary type,' provided that it does 



* Butterflies of New England, Scudder. Cambridge, Mass. 



