58 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



to test its correctness, or think it beneath contempt. Neither 

 opinion matters much, but those who wish to see a rational 

 method of genera adopted must certainly dissociate the large 

 tribal groups, now masquerading as genera, by the application 

 of characters derived from the eggs, larvae, pupae, and imagines ; 

 and if this be done the proper generic application must be 

 obtained on similar lines to those of species. My off-hand 

 criticisms of the difference of genera noticed would be — Antho- 

 charts used by Barrett, Euchloe used by Meyrick and Tutt ; 

 Anthocharis belongs to a group of entirely different structure 

 from that of Euchloe. Leptidia, used by Grote, is a matter of 

 priority; probably Grote' s name has priority over Leucophasia. 

 Colias and Gonepteryx, a matter of application of types ; Colias 

 being applied to rhamni, and the next available name Eurymus 

 being used for the "clouded yellows." Argynnis is a tribe, not 

 genus, and structurally differentiable into many genera, of which 

 we have at least three (perhaps four) — Brenthis (selene and 

 euphrosyne), ? Issoria (lathonia), Argynnis (aglaia and adippe), 

 and Dryas (paphia). The same holds good of Vanessa, Erebia, 

 Epinephele (as used by Staudinger), Thecla, Polyommatus, and 

 Hesperia. What one wants here are a comparison of the terms 

 used by Grote, Kirby, and Scudder, and a critical discussion of 

 the differences by a competent specialist. 



Arrangement depends upon phylogeny. The data for our 

 present knowledge of the phylogeny has been given us by 

 Scudder, Chapman, Eeuter, and others during the last ten 

 years. The arrangement of the old lists was the phylogeny so 

 far as the imagines gave superficial characters. Any arrange- 

 ment based on these old lists, therefore, has nothing in common 

 with the modern notions of phylogeny (i.e. relationship), e.g. 

 according to Mr. South's list, Mr. Barrett places the Lycaenidaa 

 next the Pieridae ; Dr. Chapman has shown that the former are 

 a very distinct branch of the butterfly stem connected somewhat 

 closely with the Limoniidae, whilst the Nymphalids, which are 

 closely united with the Pierids, are separated by Mr. Barrett by 

 the major part of the fauna from each other. These are some of 

 the off-hand suggestions that occur to me. The arrangements, 

 therefore, of Newman and Barrett (and, may I add, of the 

 ' Entomologist List'), are certainly not arrangements at all on 

 recent phylogenetic work, and do not reflect the work and con- 

 clusions of "recent authors." The lists published by Scudder, 

 Eeuter, Chapman, Grote, &c, would reflect such conclusions, 

 and a comparison of these would be of the highest value. 



There are other points that arise in looking through the 

 ' Entomologist.' On p. 31, Mr. Kirby records " Zygcena" phegea 

 as being taken at Wei-Hai-Wei. Now, phegea is a specialised 

 Syntomid (Arctiid). On p. 26, Dr. Chapman congratulates Sir 

 George Hampson for " rescuing the Syntomidae from their tra- 



