( X ) 



ill IbTo, giivo ik'si-iiptiniis liil«'ii I'niiu liis own s[iL'ciiuciis iiml aiiplied thf bi't'ore- 

 meutionod m;iuii>.n-iiii uaiuus to siiucics which he lielicvud to be tbc insects 

 he h;ul so luuncil in the lirilish Museum, but which were ufteu uot the siiiue. 

 MoiTdver. I'.oiMhival hiiled to recognise uiaiiv of Ihe Walkemu species, and 

 described llieni iigain luider new names. Tin' coid'usioii Ihus occasioned has, 

 we iioi'e, been successlully cleared up in Ihe [ire.sent lievisimi. 



Tliere are "ii species contained in (his Uevision. Ul' lliese we have not 

 seen Ihe Ibllowing: — 



ll'/toi'iis fniiir/!i, ji. l:!o; liHowu lo us from llie description. — Kansas. 



Lujiuni piiuKiii, p. lol ; i;nown to us from I lie description ami tiyures.— 



N. York. 

 Liijiani hiiliciivn'mi^ p. Jo;!; known to us from the description and figure. — 



Florida. 

 I'olijptiji-hns iio<iili, p. XM.'i ; known to u^ I'roiii Ihe descrii)tion and figure. 



W. Africa. 

 Sincruttlialus{'f) ili:ioniliis^ p. Ijii:.; ; known to us from Ihe ilescriplion and a 



sketch.— Hikliim. 

 ■S((/u.sj/C!^ rihljci, Ji. 4T4 : kiinwn to us from Ihe deseriplioii and figure. — Celebes. 

 J^ujjroscrjjinas ci'fcrjju, p. (Jlo ; known to ns from the description. — California. 

 ArctOHOtus terlooi, p. Ii()(j ; known to us from the description and figure.— 



W. Mexico. 

 llijijiotion h'llUri, p. Ton; known to us from the description and figure.— 



Madagascar. 



The names of which we have seen the types are markeil with an asterisk 

 {") ill the bibliography. 



Since Linue and Fabricius the Sjjldinjidae of the globe have been five times 

 classified, reviscd,''or catalogued. Hiibner, in bis Fc/-. he/;. SchmettUiKji; (about 

 182'.i), was the first to propose a detailed classification of Lepidoptera. The work 

 was, in spite of all its glaring mistakes, far in advance of the time, and was 

 therefore almost entirely neglected by the contemporary entomologists, and sub- 

 sequently forgotten or treated as not being worth consideration. We do not 

 see any reason for rejecting the generic names jiublished by Hiibner in the 

 ■ Verzeichiii^s. The definitions are insufficient and often incorrect, and the species 

 considered, geuerically the same belong often to widely dift'erent groups, while 

 close allies stand widely separated. That is quite true : but the badness of the 

 classification and of the definitions is — perhajis unfortunately— no valid urgnment 

 against the adoptiou of the names. If it were, we should likewise have to 

 reject a multitude of names proposed by more recent authors, whose definitions 



