ON THE GENERIC PHANTASIES OF S. H. SCUDDER. 119 



species on Plate VIII (Figs. 12, 12), which is as difi'erent from Mr. Edwards' description of his males as from Saiyrus Podaree, E-sp. ; 

 he quotes only our female figures against Mr. Edwards' males, whilst Mr. Edwards himself says in his description that the female was 

 "not known," and whilst our male is a brown butterfly, as dark as Atope on both surfaces, Mr. Edwards' species, according to his text, is 

 a much larger butterfly, "light yellowish brown" above and whitish beneath, more like the $ of our species, cited by Scudder as a 

 synonym, but Mr. Edwards himself stated that he knew not the female — that liis 9 examples were all males. 



Hdiconius Charitmiia is given as Apostraphia Charithonia. Under Cldorippe Herse and C. Lycaon are disguised beyond all recogni- 

 tion Apatura Clyton and A. Cdlis, Bdl. et Lee. Our common Limenitis Ursula, Fabr., is designated as Basilarehia Astyanax. Vanessa 

 is cut into four difi'erent genera, viz. : (1.) Po/^joraia for the Graptas ; (2.) Eut/onia (or V. J. Album and Calijornica; (3.) Aglais 

 for MUberti in solitary grandeur. Language fails us — our hand refuses to go further — even the ink on our pen pales — must we record 

 it, that actually the fourth genus taken from Vanessa Mr. Scudder has called Papilio and placed in it the one insect Vanessa Antiopa, L. 

 Surely no man, not gone stark mad, would be guilty of sucli unheard of, aye, undreamt of absurdities, and — but each page of this most 

 paerile affair exposes new and wilder extravagances. A separate genus called Speyeria is constructed for Argynnis Jdalia — on what 

 grounds? Because, says Mr. Scudder, "outer half of upper surface of hind wings with two rows of pale markings on a blackish 

 ground, none of the spots confluent ;" were I Dr. Speyer I really would prosecute, but alas, what do I say, are the unfortunate answera- 

 ble in law for tlieir vagaries ? After Speyeria comes the genus Semnopsyche, Scudder — for what ? to receive Argynnis Diana ; here is the found- 

 ation of Semnopsyche : "basal half of hind wings unspotted beneath, or witli only one or two faint light spots ;" after this come Argynnis, 

 showing in his arrangement that Scuilder considered Idalia further removed from Cybete, Atlantis, etc., than from Diana. Euphydryas, 

 Scudder, contains a single species, the common MelUrea Phceton, whilst its close ally, M. Chalcedona, is transmogrified into Lemonias 

 Chalcedona. Thessalia is made for Metilcea Leanira, Bdl., Theona, Men., and Thekla, Edw. For Melitma Harrisii we now have Cinelidia 

 Harrisii. Charidryas is for Melilcea Nycieis and Carlota ; and Antkanassa for Mel. Texana, Edw., and Punctata, Edw. He ends witli 

 Hypatus for the Libytheida", having made out of the Nymphalida? of N. Am. od genera and 187 species, averaging about 3J species to 

 each genus, and God save us from what is to follow if this be only "the Prodroinus !" 



In the same volume his colleague, Grote, has even outstripped him ; for in a catalogue of the N. Am. Sphingida? (not including 

 Sesia and Trockilium) he has 36 genera and 74 species — aliout twO species to the genus I It is scarce worth while to go over these freaks 

 of this vainest of egotists ; suffice it to say, that Deilephila Gallii in here Hyles Chanifrnerii; Pliilampelus is cut into three genera, i. e., 

 Dupo, Philampdus and Argeus; Snierinthus into five, i. e., Paonius, Calasymbolus, Smerinthus, Amorpha and Cressonia — the latter at the 

 expense, as previously state<i by us, of Po/;/p/j/e/ius, Hub. ; Sp/iiJi.( is divided into Lethia, Dolba, Dilophonta, Hyloicus, Lapara, Diludia, 

 MacrosUa and several others. Mr. Mosdiler lias ably criticised this wholesale manufacturing of genera, and Grote, in a feeble attejnpt 

 to vindicate iiimself, keeps in a ramliling way to the subject for a dozen lin«s or so, then goes wandering oft' into the realms of Orni- 

 thology, quoting from a paper on Samia Columbia, by Dr. Hagen, which has nothing to do with the subject, and is evidently far above 

 his (Grote's) comprehension, at any rate ; from this he gets to a paper by Prof. Kiley, which causes him much wonderment, because 

 that author wouldn't put our N. American Apaturas into a different genus from the allied European ones; he then is not agreed that 

 in proposing a generic name an autiior is obliged to construct a perfect diagnosis, and, lie might have added, when it is impossible to do 

 so — and excuses himself by telling us there must be differences of opinion in Entomology as in other matters, and finally winds up 

 with a covert hit at Morrison, delicately intimating that two of that author's species are .synonyms, as in fact everything must be that 

 had not gone through his mill ; then comes a modest notice about "my suggestions," "affinities," something about the mountains — I 

 mean "the animals which formerly may have taken refuge on Mount Washington," to escape the flood, we suppose, and we all wonder 

 what the deuce he lias been trying to get at, and come to but one conclusion, that it was to exalt Grote above iloschler, and all creation 

 besides. 



Here is an idea of the great fundamental principle that Scudder and Grote are working on: They take the first mentioned 

 species, if it happens to suit their purpose, in any one of Hubner's innumerable ' Coitus," and make that the type of the genus; thus, 

 the present genus Vanessa embraces insects placed by Hulmer in Polygonia and Euyonia ; the first name mentioned in the former is 

 Polygonia Triangulum, Fabr., ( Vanessa Eyea, Oram, i, about as aberrant in appearance from the rest enumerated as it can well be, and 

 not resembling any of our known species in the sub-genus Grapta: so Scudiler avoids this one, passes by the next, C. Aureum, L., like- 

 wise heeds not Cramer's Progne. but seizes on 0. Album a-^ the type of Polyginia; thus he has resurrected Polygonia, wliich must stand 

 as a distinct genus for the reception of those Vanessans previously comprised in Kirby's sub-genus Grapta. >io\v we come to Eugonia; 

 Hubner's type of this coitus was a rather unfortunate one, as the sect)nd species emuuerated in his previous coitus Polygonia happens to 

 be the first one which he placed in this next coitus Eugonia, namely, Angelica, Cram., which is but a synonym of C. Aureum, L., a 

 Japanese species which is as close to such .species as Polychlorus and J. Album as it is to Progne and C Album ; but, to make all things 

 square, Hubner, with wonderful .'^agacity, places it in each of his two coitus, only under a different name in each one, so that neither 

 Linne nor Cramer would have their species in this instance ignored ; so extremes meet, as the last species (I. Album, Esp.,) in Polygonia 

 is only the same as the first under another name, or rather under two other names. Scudder, in adopting the genus Eugonia, took no 

 notice of the first mentioned species, but passing over it and the ne.xt {Rhinopalpa Polynire, wliich lias no more to do with Polychlorus 

 and C. Album than it has with Ageronia Fornaxl. and likewise the next i V. Album, Wien. \eiz.,^J. Album, Edl.et Lee), he comes on 

 Polychlorus which he makes his type of Eugonia, and then the first of the two species he puts in that genus is the identical J. Album= 

 V. Album=L. Album, Esp., which he has ignored as tlie type in favor of Polychlorus. 



Grote, in his X. Am. Sphingida?, imitates Scudder, in following Hubner, but altering, of course, from the latter as his occasions 

 may require. For instance : in adopting Hubner's genus ie/ZiiVi he takes the last species (.SpA/nx Gordii«) mentioned as his type, in- 

 stead of the first, \Sph. Ligustri;) and Sph. Drupiferarum, the nearest .American ally to Ligustri, he has placed in another genus. Hub- 

 ner's coitus Polyptychi, which contains Juglandis, he ignores, as it would conflict with his own genus Cressonia, created for that species. 

 All that is yet wanting to complete Grote's work is to follow Hubner again and to head his genera with short lucid descriptions, (Scud- 

 der has already done so, I which would enable the student at a glance to know the species included in their countless tribes, stirps, fiiin- 

 ilies, coitus, etc. Here is Hubner's diagnosis of his family Angulati, comprising his Paoniee and Mimantes {Smerinthus Ocellala, Myops 

 and Exceecatui in the first, Sm. Tilice in the second ; I "The body beautifully coloured ; the wings bluntly angulated, lightly shaded."* 

 If that isn't enough to identify one of the Smerinthi a mile oft', I don't know what is. 



In Hubner's coitus ^4cAeroH/i'ff are ^cA. ^-I^ropus, h., Sph. Chionanlhi, .\hh. & ?■.,( Mac. Rustica, Fahr.,) and Ach. Morla {Lethe, 

 West ;) the first the common European death's-hea<l, the last the African .species, and between them is put our Sphinx. Rustica ( Chionan- 

 lhi,) for the one reason, doubtle.ss, that, like the other two, it has a skull-like marking on the back of the thorax ; but I much fear Hub- 

 ner, like his imitator, Grote, did not know half the things he wrote about, for in his next coitus Cocytius we again find C/iiO«an(/i)' under 

 its older name o£ Rustica. In the fifth stirps, Echidnas: "The body small ; the wings large, peculiarly ornamented ;"t the third family 

 of this stirps, Communiformes, is thus described : "the wings of common form ; variously ornamented and coloured ;"I would the sa- 

 gacity of any man living recognize Eacles Imperialis or Cith. Regalis as belonging to the above family '? Stirps 7, family D., are coitus 1, 



"*Der Runipf farbig ausgezeichnet ; die Flugel stumpf eckig, sanftschattig angelegt." Verz. p. 142. 

 tDer Leib klein ; die Flugel gro.ss, sonderbar gezeichnet. Verz. p. 151. 

 JDie Flugel gemeinformig ; unterschieden gezeichnet und gefarbt. 1. c, 153. 



