THE CANADIAN. ENTOMOLOGIST. "210 
any of the conceit that I have just now referred to; I feel sure, too, that 
he is actuated only by the desire to benefit the science; yet I do deeply 
deplore the mode that he has adopted, and am convinced that if his views 
are pressed, a very great obstacle will be thrown in the way of the 
advancement and popularization of this department of Natural History. 
We all, I am sure, look forward with eager anticipation to the publication 
of his great work upon North American Butterflies, and have no doubt 
that it will be the most complete, the most scientific, and the most 
conscientious work of the kind in America, but assuredly its value wili be 
very greatly marred and its general acceptance impaired, if he continues to 
insist upon all these radical changes. 
To show you what these changes are, I will briefly state that in the 
pamphlet already published, and which is intended as a forerunner of the , 
author’s great work on the Butterflies, the following alterations are made 
in the received nomenclature:—The 228 species enumerated are distributed 
among 96 genera—almost a genus for every two species; of these 96 
genera, 42 are entirely new, and 39 others are obsolete names of 
Hubner and others that have never been generally adopted ; there are thus 
15 familiar generic names left, but of these several are transferred from 
their present position to entirely different groups of species ; for instance, 
the name of Papilio is removed from the genus of ‘Swallow-tailed Butter- 
flies, and handed over to the sole use of the insect at present known as 
Vanessa antiopa! Further, among the 96 genera there are no less than 
45 that include but a single species apiece; and among the 228 species 
there are only 16 left with their present names unchanged! ‘These figures 
are surely quite enough to show that I have not misapplied the terms 
«sweeping, ‘revolutionary,’ and ‘radical, as characterizing this work of 
revision. I would, then, most earnestly entreat Mr. Scudder, for the sake 
of the science itself, to re-consider his projected changes,—-to. discard all 
antiquated names in favor of those that have been for.years in general 
-acceptation, and to reduce his list of new genera to as small a number as 
he conscientiously can.. If he does not, if he persists in his revision, I 
fear that his great work—most valuable as it will undoubtedly be in all 
other respects—will introduce more confusion, trouble and discord into 
American Entomology than a generation can get mid of. If these 
difficulties can be avoided in no other mode, it will remain for us all to 
unite together and agree to ignore all old forgotten names that may be 
brought forward, . and retain all remaining of familiar species, until a 
general settlement of the question can be satisfactorily arrived at. 
