CHIONOBAS II. 



times, as, for instance, in the introduction of Hubner's name ffineis for the genus 

 Chionobas, Bois. Hiibner divides the species in this genus into two separate 

 groups, Eumenis and (Eneis, and in both mixes them up with species of the 

 genus Satynis. Under Eumenis he places Antonoe, Aello, Semele, and Tarpeja. 

 Under ffineis. Noma, Bore, Celcmo, Jutta, and Arethusa. The generic charac- 

 ters which he gives for Eumenis are : ' the upper side of the wings banded with 

 ochre-yellow, under side of the hind wings white fringed and delicately marbled ; ' 

 for (Eneis, ' both wings on upper side spotty rust-yellow, below marbled gray 

 l)an(led.' Thus Hiibner has not even recognized the very natural genus 

 Chionobas as such, let alone characterizing it sufficiently." And as Mr. A. R 

 Wallace states, Anniv. Address, 1872, p. 18, while discussing the subject of the 

 Huljnerian genera, " Such a mode of defining genera (by fades) is undoubt- 

 edly superficial, and it can only be by the purest accident that a group so charac- 

 terized can correspond in extent to any real genus." It needs nothing farther 

 than the definitions of these groups as given to prove that neither of them em- 

 brace Idumt and its allies. 



