CHIONOBAS II. 



shown to be a uniform tan color ; the primaries are broader than in Call font tea, 

 and less produced apically, the fuscous marginal border is scalloped on its inner 

 edge across the entire wing ; the deep brown shade of the oblique bar on disk 

 passes quite around the cell, and j(jins the equally deep color of costal margin ; 

 on secondaries there is a long fuscous stripe from outer angle to middle of wing. 

 The imder side agrees with Californica in being nearly deprived of markings, 

 but the discal band of secondaries is quite different ; it is narrower by one half 

 at its origin on costal margin, and is more regularly scalloped on its exterior 

 side. It is also scalloped in same way on the basal side, and in this respect it 

 resembles no one of the allied species. The description expressly states that 

 both the basal and exterior outlines of the band are " crenated." 



As the four species of this group differ so decidedly in respect to this discal 

 band, I have thought it well to indicate more particularly the peculiarities of 

 each, by the following cuts. 



Iduna. 



Gifras. 



Nevadensis. 



Californica. 



I have retained the generic name Chionobas, Boisduval, for the species herein 

 figured, in prefei'ence to that of CEneis, Hiibner, which of late has been forced 

 into prominence, for three reasons : first, that Boisduval is the earliest author 

 who defined and limited the genus ; second, that in my opinion CEneis, as ap- 

 plied to the genus so defined and limited, has no authority whatever, it having 

 been not only a mere catalogue name, but a name given to an assemblage or 

 batch of butterflies, embracing some that belong to Chionobas and some that 

 belong to Satyrus ; and thirdly, whether it has authority or not, it certainly 

 cannot be made to embrace one of these species. I regard the so called Hlib- 

 nerian genera of butterflies as mostly worthless, and would reject nearly every 

 one which has not been introduced by a subsequent author in a proper way, 

 that is, under definition and limitation, and then, though the mere name be 

 Hubner's, the authorship of the genus should be attributed to the systematist 

 who so properly uses it ; of course to the wholesale overthrow of Hubner's 

 priority in tlie matter of genei-a. Dr. A. Speyer, in a late issue of the Ent. 

 Zeit., Stett. 1875, v. .36, p. 98, in his paper on " Europaisch-Amerikanische 

 Verwandtschaften," uses these words in reference to this very question of Chiono- 

 bas versus CEneis : " The limit of the permissible has been overstepped many 



