(diy) 
fairly well-known. The second is the uncertainty of the 
elassification which at present exists in many of the most 
important groups. It would seem, as far as one can judge 
from what we do know, that the families and genera of 
butterflies are more cosmopolitan in their distribution than 
those of either animals or birds; but this may be partly owing 
to the fact that the recognised genera are not so much sub- 
divided. 
And on the question of sub-division of genera I must say a 
few words. Since the publication of Westwood and Double- 
day’s work, many years ago, there has been no attempt made, 
so far as I know, to revise the genera of butterflies except 
in Schiitz’s (continued by Rober) ‘ Familien und Gattungen der 
Tagfalter,’ published in 1892, as a volume of the ‘ Exotische 
Schmetterlinge ’ of Staudinger and Schiitz. 
This is a careful and fairly complete work, based on an 
analytical study of the rich collection of Dr. O. Staudinger, 
but the genera adopted are so large in many cases, that some 
extent of sub-division seems necessary for purposes of con- 
venience. The very numerous sub-genera proposed, though 
insufficiently characterised, by Moore, Butler, and Scudder, 
but in many cases not accepted by other lepidopterists, are 
not sufficiently criticised by Schiitz, and genera such as Saty- 
rus, containing many divergent species, are adopted en bloc. 
Some of our best systematists, of whom Messrs. Godman 
and Salvin are the leaders, consider that it is impossible to 
sub-divide large cosmopolitan genera such as Thecla in a 
satisfactory way when dealing with local faunas, and in this 
I fully agree with them. We have a good recent instance 
of the extent to which the contrary system may be carried 
in Scudder’s ‘ Butterflies of the Eastern United States and 
Canada.’ In his preface, p. ix., Mr. Scudder attempts to 
justify this practice by saying, “if the characters I 
‘‘ have pointed out, as pertaining to such groups and their 
‘‘ relations to those placed above and below them, are not 
‘‘in themselves a justification, then I have none, and no- 
‘‘ words of mine could or should alter such a fact ; if, how- 
‘‘ever, these characteristics represent actual categories, 
‘“‘andif, at the same time, such groupings make clearer the 
