2888 Tue ZooLocist—JANUARY, 1872. 
Fam. iii. Saryripes: includes Arge = Melanagria, Erebia, Chionobas, 
Satyrus, Epinephele, Cenonympha = Chortobius, and Pyrarga. 
Fam. iy. Lisyrurripes;: includes Libythea only. 
Fam. v. Erycrxipes: includes Nemeobius only. 
Fam. vi. Prertpes: includes Leucophasia, Pieris, Anthocharis, Colias, 
and ‘Rhodocera. 
Fam. vii. Lyczyipes: includes Lycena, Polyommatus, and Thecla. 
Fam. viii. Equities: includes Papilio, Thais, and Doritis. 
HESPERIDES. 
Fam. ix. Hesperipes: includes Hesperide only. 
I may perhaps be allowed to remark that the family Libytheides 
appears to me by no means distinct from the Satyrides; its larva 
is slug-shaped, and is incorrectly represented by Hiibner: it has 
the usual forked tail of the Satyrides, and its suspended pupa has 
all the characters of that familiar family. 
I will now give my own views of the mode in which butterflies 
are most naturally arranged, as proposed in the ‘ Entomologist’ for 
March, 1870; but it appears desirable first to allude to the praise- 
worthy labours of Mr. Westwood, in his ‘ Modern Classification of 
Insects,’ in the second volume of which he has given a slight 
historical sketch of the bibliography of this beautiful group, together 
with a statement of his own views, which for many years I was 
unable to understand, owing to a misapplication of terms. “ In 
the following arrangement,” says Mr. Westwood, “I have endea- 
voured to combine the views of my predecessors. I accordingly 
consider the Heterocera as formed of two primary groups named 
Nudi and Involuti, from the naked or covered condition of the 
chrysalis, answering to the genera Papilio and Hesperia of Fabri- 
cius, regarding the characters exhibited by the latter or the family 
Hesperiidz in all its stages as of far higher rank than those of any 
of the other groups.” Now I think Mr. Westwood must have 
intended to write “ Rhopalocera” and not “ Heterocera,” because 
the proposed divisional characters will not in any respect apply to 
these; and I think also the term “Involuti” can in no respect 
apply to the genus Hesperia of Fabricius, which, as I understand 
it, comprises the Plebeii Rurales, equivalent to our great modern 
family Polyommatidz, so essentially “ Nudi,” as well as the Plebeii 
Urbicolz, equivalent to our Hesperides, so essentially “ Involuti.” 
Moreover, Mr. Westwood places the genus Doritis in his first or 
