shorl f liiif iif'torwaril.s, B publishes h list of species collectetl by himself during a 

 siiunuer trip, among tliem lie mentions a species originally quoted amongst the 

 representatives of A's genus ; according to Mr. Scudder, B thus accidentally fixes 

 the type of A's genus, and becomes famous ; this may sound like nonsense, but sub- 

 stitute catalogue list for collector's list, and this is precisely what Mr. Scudder has 

 done.* I can see no reason why, in a question of types, the restrictive system should 

 not be thorough, therefore I think Mr. Scudder should look up all the entomological 

 pamphlets and serials issued since the time of Linnteus, and see if he cannot find an 

 earlier restriction of such groups as Papilio, Pieris, or Hesperia. I feel quite hopeful 

 of his success. 



2ud. — I regret to hare to say it, but Mr. Scudder is not quite consistent ; he 

 objects to one geiuis ou the ground of its not having been characterized (seep. 250), 

 whilst he sinks another because its type has previously had an uncharactized generic 

 name applied to it (Ancliyphlebia for instance) ; he, moreover, occasionally rejects a 

 genus for another reason, the case being as follows : — A describes a genus in which 

 he places three or four species ; B describes the same szenus with one or two additional 

 species, and under another name ; C sinks B's genus very properly as a synonym of 

 A's ; D finds that B's genus contained heterogeneous material, and founds a new 

 genus for one or two of the species included in B's group : in comes Mr. Scudder at 

 this point, and upsets D's genus as a synonym of B'sf (as examples, see CallitoRra, 

 HerpcBnia, and NychitonaJ . 



Mr. Scudder departs from his own rule in the case of Pieris, for in 1805, as he 

 himself shows, this genus was restricted, and P. rapcB was omitted from the list of 

 species ; yet, according to Scudder, P. rapce may be considered the type. 



3rd. — If we were to accept all the genera which are permitted to stand in the 

 ' Historical Sketch,' we should be obliged to separate species which differ in no 

 structural characters, and thus genera would become (as some entomologists assert 

 that they arc) jjurely artificial and unnatural conveniences for grouping together a 

 small number of allied species. 



4th. — It is not reasonable to accept, as the type of a genus, a species to which 

 the author's diagnosis is not at all applicable ; therefore Mr. Scudder's views of 

 Hesperia and Lasiommata cannot be adopted. 



5th. — In some instances the original, and at other times the corrected, spelling 

 of certain names is to be preferred ; therefore, I should suggest that Pinacopteryx 

 and Pyrisitia should not be altered to Picanopteryx and Pyristia, and that tiie 

 incorrect forms Daptonoiira, Eulaceura, and Mitoura.X shovdd not be restored to the 

 genera Dapionura, JSulacura, and Mitura. Mr. Scudder justifies the restoration of 

 the spelling Mitonra on the plea that " it is derived from 'Mifos' and 'oura,' " but I 

 think wlu'n Mr. Rye made the correction lie was fully aware of this fact. 



6th. — Although notes are inserted in the 'Sketch ' up to March, 1875, several 

 of my own genera are omitted : — 



Pal.5:ontmph.\, Trans. Ent. Soc, 1871, type P. opallna. 

 Ancistroides, „ „ „ 1874, „ A. longicomis. 



Pbeudeeesia, „ „ „ „ „ P. catharina. 



Probably other authors may be able to add to these desiderata. 



* See Xenicu and other genera ; of cour.se I feel were the shoe pinches ray own coma first. 



t I may here call attention to Scudder's notes on the genera Pleroarua, Tanaoittera, and others. 



} I.oiily quote these as examples. 



