Groups of the Lepidoptera. 331 
the arrangement of Mr. Doubleday? I suppose it is 
quite certain that not one would place the species in 
anything approaching to that order. Ever since the 
publication of this second List* of Mr. Doubleday, we in 
England have been subjected to the discomfort of having 
to acknowledge two rival systems, the advocates of either 
of which take the smallest recognition of the other. The 
rights and wrongs of the matter have never been fought 
out in consequence; a thing, perhaps, not difficult to ac- 
count for, when we consider that the one party have never 
shown, or professed to show, any reasons for their scheme. 
Meanwhile, in 1866, Mr. Doubleday’s list saw another 
edition. In 1867, Mr. Stainton published another book 
on Butterflies and Moths, and a considerable portion of 
it is concerned with classification. It takes no notice 
whatever of the new order, and reproduces that of the 
Manual. At the same time, Mr. Newman brings out his 
descriptive work, the “Natural History of British 
Moths,” in which he follows Mr. Doubleday. Lastly, in 
1870, Dr. Knaggs prints a new list on the side of Mr. 
Stainton ; and Dr. Staudinger only this year has brought 
to the side of the Linnzan order another edition of his 
elaborate Catalogue, which has indeed reached our hands 
in England only within the last few days. 
The alteration in the position of the Geometre, sug- 
gested by M. Guenée as an alternative scheme of arrange- 
ment, had not, until the year 1859, attracted much 
attention ; but the primary idea of Mr. Doubleday’s List 
was, it seems to have been considered, the carrying out 
of that idea. At the same time, other and startling 
variations in our arrangement were introduced; the 
Sphinges and Bombyces were then rolled into one group ; 
anda family of Bombyces, the Notodontide, being detached 
and separated by the whole group of Geometre from the 
main body, was erected into a group by itself; the 
family Platypterygide was erected into a principal group, 
and inserted next after the Geometre, and before the 
detached Notodontide. The revolution was signalized, 
as in the Year One of the French Republic, by things 
being named anew. 
* It would be invidious to push comment on this head much further ; 
but, if any course more than another be calculated to invite hostile 
criticism of this publication, the rhapsodical eulogy of it by its authors’ 
friends is certainly that one. 
