Notes oil the Generic Noiiiciidatiirc of LcjjidojJtcra : by G. R. 

 CliOTCH, M.A. 



One question arises out of the lists which I published 

 in the last number of this journal, viz. : if two co-exten- 

 sive genera are formed by different authors (not being 

 co-typical), what is to be done with them ? e.g., Falnicius 

 indicated our family Satyridie under the name Satyrus, his 

 type being (as the name shows) S. Maera; Dalman also 

 gTouped the species of that family in the genus Erebia, 

 taking E. Ligea as his central point. When the family is 

 split up, as now, into numerous genera, are these to be 

 used as their typical species woidd indicate ; or, being 

 co-extensive synonyms, is it lawful to propose new names 

 for the groups represented by those types ? 



Mr. Kirby has called attention to the sections adopted 

 by Herbst (1785-1800) and Borkhausen (1788-90). Herbst 

 adopts sixteen sections, which in no case have any types, 

 and are often equal to those of ral)ricius : his names, 

 obviously deduced from " Equites," were clearly not in- 

 tended as generic, being merely the civil and military 

 classes of the Roman nation. 1. Equites. 2. Heliconii. 

 3. I'arnassii. 4. Danai. 5. Consules. G. Nol)iles. 

 7. Tribuni (=:Danais Auct.). 8. Pra^fecti (=Nymphalis). 

 9. PriEtores (= Satyrus). 10. Vestales. 11. Archontes. 

 12. Dictatores. 13. Milites (Argynnis). 14. Epliori 

 (=:Thecla.). 15. Gives (=:Plebeius). IG. liustici (=Hes- 

 peria). 



CiSTI'I.A ENTOMOI.OGieA, 



yuiy zoth, i8j2. 



