Tae ZooLocist—Janvuary, 1872. 2883 
Brassicex, Rape, Napi, Crategi, Cardamines, Sinapis, Galathea and 
Daplidice. 
“TIT. Quarum ale de rufo aut fulvo maxime participant nigro, albo, luteo, 
ceruleove colore yarie”: includes Urtice, Polychloros, C-album, 
Paphia, Adippe, Lathonia, Selene, Athalia, Cinxia, Artemis, Lucina, 
Cardui, Io, Megera, Janira, Tithonus, Pamphilus, Phlzas and 
Linea. 
“TV. Quarum ale pull aut nigricantes ocellis aut maculis flavicantibus, 
e flavo albicantibus aut in aversa parte rufis varie, quibus addimus 
eas que alis sunt ceruleis ocellis pictis:” includes Atalanta, Iris, 
Sybilla, Egeria, Semele, Hyperanthus, Quercus, Betule, Icarus, 
Corydon, Argiolus, Acis, Malve and Rubi. 
It will be observed that colour affords the only character in this 
subdivision: and I should also state that Ray did not name the 
species ; he only described them: there are no names in the original, 
Between fifty and sixty years elapsed after the publication of Ray’s 
- posthumous work before those great leaders in our Science, Linneus 
and Fabricius, gave to the world their views on the arrangement of 
butterflies : in both their systems considerable allusion is made to 
the shape of wings, and there is some amplification of the use of 
colour; size is also mentioned by Linneus in the instance of 
onisciforms, Plebeii rurales, which are described as “ smali,” and 
the larva is noticed as being “ often contracted.” Fabricius divides 
tbe butterflies into two genera, Papilio and Hesperia, which latter 
is equivalent to the Plebeii of Linneus, including the onisciforms 
and the Hesperias of modern arrangements: the exact views of 
Linneus will of necessity appear as adopted by Haworth, and 
therefore need not be cited here. But anterior to Haworth came 
the system of Denis and Schiffermuller, in which the prior states of 
larva and pupa are distinctly admitted as a basis of classification : 
these I have incorporated with my own views further on. This, 
which was the earliest attempt at a mixed system, dates 1776, 
therefore was nearly synchronous with the later editions of Linneus, 
and anterior to most of the labours of Fabricius: there was not, 
therefore, a chance for the proposed changes to find any distinct 
recognition by either of these distinguished authors. We cannot 
say the same of Haworth, who was acquainted with Denis and 
Schiffermuller, who cites their works, and who enumerates them as 
among the “ ductores citati,” yet prefers ignoring their teachings 
altogether, and reverts to the characters of magnitude, colour and 
