April, '03] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 1 29 



Eugonia j-albiim and calif orfiica are probably another instance of ab- 

 surd correlation. Our present knowledge does not warrant the lumping 

 of so many names under CEneis noma (p. 31). There can be no ques- 

 tion about the value of dividing large aggregations of species if the basis 

 for division amounts to anything. Our previous remarks apply to the 

 old genus Thecla which is divided into 14 genera. All that is necessary 

 is to look over the species and see the utter absurdity of the whole thing. 

 Under Eupsyche are placed species that have no relationship. Poor 

 melinus looks very lonely. The Hesperidae are also in a chaotic condi- 

 tion. There is a character found here and there throughout the family, 

 the costal fold. It is a male character and no one knows why it occurs in 

 one species and not in another. Some genera are separated on its pres- 

 ence or absence and in other cases it is not used at all. The genus Phol- 

 i'sora is based on its presence, if I remember correctly, as is also the 

 genus Cocceius Godman and Salvin. The latter genus is based on 

 pylades which is separated generically from bathyllus. Eudamus sinipli- 

 cius has a costal fold and Eudamus eurycles has not. Now what is to 

 be done — should a new genus be based on simplicius or should simplicius 

 go with Pholisora caiullus or with Thorybes pylades. If we follow meth- 

 ods in vogue it would be a new genus. Logically it would be tommyrot. 

 One of my professors in college said it was all nonsense to try and teach 

 people logic, as they were born either logical or illogical. Do the spe- 

 cies with a costal fold belong to one genus or to many genera? The coi- 

 relation under the generic divisions of Pamphila are enough to make one 

 weep. For example take Calpodes ethlius and Calpodes python, Limo- 

 chroes manataagua and Thymelicus cernes. The latter two are placed 

 in different genera and there is even doubt about their being distinct 

 species. 



The same remark applies to Epargyreus tityrus and Rhabdoides zestos. 



Another example is Lerema accius and Lerenia deva. Still another 

 Phycanassa viator and Phycanassa Carolina. One large genus like Pam- 

 phila should be divided, provided the division is based on a character or 

 characters that hold good for the species separated. What use are gen- 

 era if the species are placed by guess-work and show no true relation- 

 ship ? If the many generic divisions of the Heterocera show the same 

 want of specific correlation, they are indeed in a sad state. Space and 

 want of familiarity do not permit me to speak of these in detail. It may 

 not be amiss to point out that there is no relationship between Psycho- 

 phora sabinii Curtis and b. immaculata Skinner, as they belong to differ- 

 ent families. 



Comparative anatomy is an interesting study and the anatomical differ- 

 ences in insects should be made known, but it does not follow that every 

 species that shows some anatomical difference is a new genus. It 

 should not be forgotten that a classification is to facilitate study and iden- 

 tification, and that it is not an exposition of comparative anatomy. We 



