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



epec'ifs on Plate VIII (Kigs. 12, 12 1, which is as difleri'iU from Mr. Edwards' description of liis males as from Salyrus Podarce, Esp. ; 

 he quotes only our female figures against Mr. Edwards' males, whilst Mr. Edward- himself .savs in his de-scription that the female was 

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

 a much larger bultcrtly, "light yellowish brown" above and whitish beneath, more like the 9 of our specie.s, cited by Scudder as a 

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



Hdkonius Charilonia is given as Aposlraphia Charilltoniu. Umler Cfilurijipe Herse and C. Lycaon are disguised beyond all recogni- 

 tion Apatura Cli/fon and .-l. Ccltis, Bdl. et Lee. Our comnmn Limeiiilis Urauta, Fabr., is designated as Basitarchia Astyanax. Vanessa 

 is cut into four different genera, viz. : (1.1 Po(j/_(7onia for the (iraptas ; (2.1 Euyonia (or I'. J. Album and Calij'ornica ; (.3.) Aglais 

 for Milberii in solitary grandeur. Language fails us — our hand refuses to go farther — 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 m;ui, not gone stark mad, would be guilty of such unheard of, aye, undreamt of absurdities, and — but each page of .this most 

 puerile attair exposes new and wilder extravagances. A separate genus called Speyeria is constructed for Argynnis Idalia — 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 continent ;" were I Dr. Speyer 1 really would prosecute, but alas, what do I say, are the unfortunate answera- 

 ble in law for their vagaries? M'ter Speyeria comes the gen us 6'e;?ino;)si/c/ie, Scudder — for what? to receive Argynnis Diana ; here is the found- 

 .ation of Semnopsyche : "basal half of hind wings unspotted beneath, or with only one or two faint light siMts ;" after this comeyirjri/nm's, 

 showing in his arrangement that Scudder considered hhdia further removed fioui Cyhcle, Atlantis, etc., than from Diana. Euphydryas, 

 Scudder, contains a single species, the common Melitcea PImlon, whilst its close ally, M. C'hakedona, is transmogritied into Lemonias 

 Chakedona. Thessalia is made for Melitcea Lcanira, Bdl., Theona, Men , and Thekla, E Iw. For Melitcea Harrisil we now have Cinclidia 

 Harrisii. Charidryas is for Melitira Nycteis and Carlota ; and Anthanassa for Mel. Teiana, Edw., ami Panetata, Edw. He ends with 

 Hypatus for the Libytheidiv, having made out of the Nymphalidie of N. Am. 50 genera and 187 sjieeies, averaging about 3| species to 

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



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

 jSesta and Trochilium) he has 36 genera and 74 species — about 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 Gatlii is here Hyles Chanuenerii ; Phitampelus is cut into three genera, i. e., 

 Dupo, Philampeliis and Argeus; Smerinthus into i\vv. i. e., Paonius, Calasymbolns, Smerinthns, Amorpha and C'ressonia — the latter at the 

 expense, as previously stated by us, of Po/yp(;/c"^i«s, Hub. ; 5;)/iin.r is divided into Lethia, Dolba, Dilophonta, Hyloicus, Lapara, Diludia, 

 Macrosila and several others. Mr. Moschler has ably criticised this wholesale manufacturing of genera, and Grote, in a feeble attempt 

 to vindicate himself, keeps in a rambling way to the subject for a dozen lin«n or .so, then goes wandering off' 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 (Cirote's I comprehension, at any rale ; from this he gets to a paper by Prof. Riley, which causes him much wonderment, because 

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

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

 so — and excuses himself by telling us there must be dirti-rences 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 suppiose, and we all wonder 

 what the deuce he has been trying to get at, and come to but one conclusion, that it was to exalt Grote above- Moschler, 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 ' Coitu«," and make that the type of the genus; thus, 

 the present genus I aiiessu embraces insects placed by Hubner in Polygonia and Eugonia ; the first name mentioned in the former is 

 Polygonia Triangulum, Fabr., ( T'anes.5a Egea, Cram.), 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 Scudder avoids this one, passes by the next, C. Aureum, L., like- 

 wise heeds not Cramer's Progne. but seizes on C. Album as the type of Polygmia; thus he has resurrected Polygonia, which must stand 

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

 Hubner's type of thi.s coitus was a rather unfortunate one, as the second species enumerated 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 Polyrhlorus and J. Album as it is to Progne and C. Album; but, to make all things 

 square, Hubner, with wonderful .sagacity, places it in each of bis 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 (/. 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 next I Rhinojialpa Polynice, which has no more to do with Polychlorus 

 and C. Album than it has with Ageronia Fornax), and likewise the next ( V. Album, Viieu. Verz.,^./. Album, Bdl.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 the 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 £e(/iia he takes the last species I iSpAi'nx (Jorrfius) mentioned as his type, in- 

 stead of the first, tSph. 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 confiict 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,) which would enable the student at a glance to know the species included in their countless tribe.s, stirps, fam- 

 ilies, coitus, etc. Here is Hubner's diagnosis of his family Angulati, comprising his Paonice and Miniantes [Smerintkus Ocellata, Myops 

 and Excoccatus in the first, Sm. Tilia in the second ;) "The body beautifully coloured ; the wings bluntly angulated, lightly shaded."* 

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



In Hubner's coitus Acherontice are Ach. Atropus, L., Sph. Chionanthi, .\bb. & S., {Mac. Bustica, Fabr.,) and Ach. Morta {Lethe, 

 West ;) the first the common European death's-head, the last the .\frican species, and between them is pint our Sphinx Rustica { Chionan- 

 thi,) for the one reason, doubtless, that, like the other two, it has a skull-like marking on the back of the thorax ; but 1 much fear Hub- 

 ner, like his imitator, Grote, did not know half tiie things he wrote about, for in his next coitus Cocytius we a^ain find Chionanthi under 

 its older name oi Rustica. In the fifth stirps. Echidna: "The body small ; the wings large, peculiarly ornamented ;"f the third, familv 

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

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



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

 fDer Leib klein ; die Flugel gross, sonderbar gezeichnet. Verz. p. 151. 

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



