The Zoologist— April, 1870. 2111 



Several Members asked whether it was certain that no description of the 

 Brenthid genus, no tabular statement, or comparative remarks sufficient to 

 constitute a description of the genus, were published before 1862 ? And 

 Mr. Pascoe replied, that though the genus and the name were adopted by 

 Schonherr in 1840, and though Westwood had in 1848 described and figured a 

 species, neitlier author had specified any generic characters. 



Many Members objected that no alteration of Motschulsky's name was 

 admissible, and that Biurus ought to be retained. Mr. Bates protested strongly 

 against the numerous alterations in names made by Gemminger and Harold. 



Mr. Dunning remarked that, according to the view promulgated in Mr. G. R. 

 Crotch's paper recently read before the Society, the Brenthid genus was entitled 

 to priority as from 1834: if this ground failed, there was something in the 

 contention that the genus was well estabhshed by the publication of Westwood's 

 figure in 1848. But even on the assumption that Diurus dated only from 186"2, 

 he maintained that the name ought to be applied to the genus of Brenthidae. 

 The publication of Biurus in 1852 left Diurus unoccupied in 1862 ; and the 

 publication of Diurus in 1869 was a sufficient reason for not altering Biurus 

 into Diurus in 1809. If Biurus must be altered on the ground of its hybrid 

 formation, it cannot now be altered to Diurus, but must be altered to some 

 unoccupied name ; in other words, Biurus must be abandoned altogether, and 

 a totally new name given to the genus of Telephoridse.* 



The President assented to the conclusion that the publication of Diurus in 

 1862 was a bar to the alteration of Biurus into Diurus in 1869. And it 

 appeared to be the general opinion that Diurus ought to be retained for the 

 genus of Brenthidae. 



Paper read. 



The following paper was read : — " On some Butterflies recently received by 

 Mr. Swanzy from West Africa ; " by Mr. A. G. Butler. 



* In 1833, Gyllenhal, adopting a MS. name of Chevrolat's, described Ceocepbahis 

 furcillatus (Schonh. Cure. i. 359). In 1834, Dejean, in tlie second edition of his 

 Catalogue, separated furcillatus from the genus Ceocephalus, and proposed the genus 

 Diurus for its reception. In 1840, Schonherr (vol. v. p. 510) adopted both the genus and 

 the name. In 1848, Westwood described and figured the same species under the name 

 of Diuris {sic) forcipatus (Cab. Orient. Entom. pi. xv. fig. 3). In 1863 Pascoe (Joum. of 

 Entom. i. 392) formulated the generic chai-acters. Motschulsky's Biurus was published 

 in 1853 (Etudes Entom. i. 13). 



Mr. Crotch's contention is (Trans. Ent. Soc. 1870, p. 41) that "genera proposed in 

 Catalogues on previously described species are entitled to priority." If this contention 

 be sound, then Dejean's Diurus dates from 1834, eighteen years prior to Motschulsky, 

 and Mr. Pascoe's difficulty does not arise. 



So also, if Biurus, in spite of its hybrid formation, is to remain unaltered, Mr. Pascoe's 

 difficulty does not arise. 



These, however, are modes of avoiding the question, not of answering it. Let us 

 consider it from Mr. Pascoe's own point of view, admitting for the present argumont the 



