Tue ZooLocist—January, 1872. 2893 
with Erycinide of Swainson: I am not certain that this is exactly 
so, for the limits of Swainson’s family seem indicated rather than 
defined: the larve of this family require a much more careful in- 
vestigation than they have obtained, before it can be possible to say 
whether all the genera that Mr. Kirby has catalogued are properly 
included within its limits ; but there is one point on which I do not 
hesitate to dissent—the coining a new name to supplant one that 
has become so familiar as Erycinide or Erycinides; for I cannot 
doubt that it is intended as an equivalent of Boisduval’s as well as 
Latreille’s Erycinides. The plea for this fanciful and most objec- 
tionable change is that the name Erycina is preoccupied. 
The third family, Lycenide, is generally accepted, and no 
objection can be raised to its acceptance; but I trust no entomo- 
logist will adopt the capricious, unwarranted introduction of the 
generic name Cupido for Lycena, as proposed by Mr. Kirby. 
T do not contend that Schrank’s is not the prior name, but I do 
contend that a name given seventy years ago, and which has been 
totally neglected and utterly forgotten, should never be revived and 
reintroduced. 
Proceeding to the fourth family, Papilionide, we find it almost 
the exact equivalent of a combination between Herrich-Scheffer’s 
sixth family, Pierides, and his eighth family, Equitides, which two 
families that learned author has separated by the interposition of 
the Lycznides, thus at the same time ignoring the affinity between 
the Erycinide and Lycenide. 
Of Mr. Kirby’s subfamily Papilionine, what can I say except 
that it is in every respect opposed to my own ideas of natural 
arrangement? The genera included are Mesapia, Calinaga, Hyper- 
mnestra, Doritis, Parnassius, Eurycus, Euryades, Sericinus, Thais, 
Teinopalpus, Papilio and Leptocircus: Papilio, which has hitherto 
led the van in the lepidopterous army; Leptocircus, which is pro- 
bably an Erycina, Godart considered it so; the imperial Teino- 
palpus ; and the nubigenous Doritis, more moth-like far than Urania, 
Thaliura, Nyctalemon and Sematura, which Mr.’Kirby simply 
designates as “ the following species of moths.” 
Of course I entirely dissent from Mr. Kirby’s alteration of generic 
and specific names. In my comparatively insignificant task, the 
‘British Butterflies, I have strained many a questionable point in 
order to preserve an old and familiar name: Mr. Kirby has availed 
himself of almost every possible opportunity of introducing a new 
SECOND SERIES—VOL. VII. D 
