40 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS. 



A Working List of British Butterflies. — In the list pre- 

 sented in last month's ' Entomologist ' it is difficult to distinguish 

 the diphthongs in some of the names. A correspondent draws my 

 attention to this fact. Of course, actceon, palcBvion, ylilczas, agon, 

 megcBva, and Lyccena should all read ae, not oe, diphthong. 

 With regard to the spelling of Ejyinephile, 1 confess I wavered. 

 Epinephele is obviously the right spelling, but I found that Mr. Wheeler 

 had accepted Epinephile, and followed his lead accordingly. — H. R.-B. 



Genera op Butterflies. — Some considerations have been 

 suggested to me by reading the List of British Butterflies and 

 instructive remarks thereon presented by Mr. Rowland-Brown on 

 p. 1 of the January number. When I collected butterflies as a boy 

 some forty-five years ago, the 15 British species of that time were 

 classified in 27 genera; the same species now constitute 49 genera, 

 an increase of 22. This is attributed to the pi ogress of research 

 work. Is everything now known about these insects '? x\ssuredly 

 not ; whole branches of the subject are hardly touched yet. Then 

 further progress may be expected to involve more new genera ; a few 

 more years, and the 16 deficient genera will be supplied, providing a 

 genus for every species. What, then, will be the use of genera ? I 

 am therefore led to inquire what is the logical connection between 

 progress of research work and multiplication of genera ; and since 

 Mr. Rowland-Brown, as a butterfly expert, warmly approves these 

 results, and characterises previous arrangements as indefensible and 

 absurd, I invite him to state by what principles he is guided in 

 deciding that the differences between two species are sufficiently 

 important to warrant generic separation or not, as the case may be. 

 He seems to assume that the differences between himself and 

 Staudinger, for example, are differences of knowledge, but possibly 

 they may be differences of principle ; and there are such things as 

 mistaken principles. Of course, genera not based on principles ar& 

 merely matters of individual opinion, and have no scientific value. — 

 Edward Meyrick ; Thornhanger, Marlborough. 



[I regret that I cannot accept Mr. Meyrick's invitation to the 

 agreeable field of controversy to which he invites me. I consider 

 that the knowledge acquired before and since Staudinger's Catalogue 

 may as well be applied to generic as to specific nomenclature. My 

 object, however, in publishing the List of Butterflies is solely to 

 secure some sort of uniformity of nomenclature for the pages of the 

 'Entomologist.' Mr. Meyrick is at liberty to accept my suggestions^ 

 or not, for that purpose. — H. R.-B.] 



In H. R.-B.'s " Working List of British Butterflies," ' Ent.,' vol. li, 

 pp. 1-2 (1918), ''Argynnis adippe L." is given as the "up-to-date" 

 name of one of our British species. Surely this should be corrected 

 to Argynnis cydippe, L. Pap)ilio cyclip)pe L. 1761 = Papilio adij^pe 

 L. nn. (1767) [nee Papilio § cydip)pe L. (1763) an invalid homonym] . 

 Vide Tr. Ent. Soc. Loud. 3915, Rp. Br. Nat. Com. Ent. NomencL 

 q. 17, pp. 12-13 (1916). — Jno. Hartley Durrant; British Museum 

 (N.H..J, January 19th, 1918. [Yes, certainly.— H. R.-B.] 



