144 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 
considered as the equivalent. I believe that Fabricius’ use of the term 
Papilio will not allow us to follow Mr. Scudder’s. I remain of the opinion 
that the older writers before Schrank sufficiently expressed their ideas as 
to the typical section of the genus, and that the term should be used for a 
genus of which the European P. machaon is the type. As we cannot use 
Liugonia, Hubn., of which angelica, Cramer, is the type, I propose the term 
Scudderia for the Pap. antiopa of Linnæus. 
12. AGLAIS Dalm.—This I think we may adopt without hesitation 
and be thankful for the pretty name. 
13. VANESSA, Fubr. 14. JUNONIA, Huby. 15. EUPTOIETA, Doubl— 
The values of these terms have not been altered. The seven genera 
among which our frittillaries are divided, I think we must agree are 
tenable. To Zuphydryas I refer Melitza chalcedon, Boisd., from Cali- 
fornia. 
23. LIBVTHEA, Fabr.—We are unfeignedly glad Kirtland’s term is 
retained and that we are not to be vexed by another of Boisduval and 
Leconte’s unfulfilled intentions. 
24. CALEPHELIS, G. & &.—Mr. Scudder uses erroneously Poly- 
stichtis. Inthe Verzeichniss, Hubner identifies with an exclamation mark 
Papilio fatima, Cram., 271, A. B., and regards this as the type of 
Polystichtis. It is from Surinam. Our two species from the Atlantic 
District are generically distinct from the S. American forms. Hubner 
considers that “ Pap. cereus” of Linn. is this species of Cramer’s, and 
prefers that name, but this identification may not be correct. Retain 
Polystichtis for the S. American forms, but there is no excuse for stating 
that “ Papilio cenius” is the “type” of Polystichtis. We were familiar 
with Hubner some time ago. We doubt that Linnæus intended our W. 
pumila under his “cereus,” “‘cerea,” cr “centus.” —We--propose to 
designate our two species as Cal. pumila and C. borealis. 
So far as we have proceeded some few generic changes seem impos- 
sible to be avoided. Many of Hubner’s genera are excellently well 
limited (e. g. Nisoniades), even according to our present views. Perhaps 
it is not hazarding too much to say that his genera are not in the present 
state of science, more incongruous than those of any one author of or 
before his time. It is difficult to say on what plea we shall ignore him, 
“The prejudice has been strong that has hitherto neglected him. 
As we must adopt Oeneis, Hubner, we propose the term Ca/æneis as 
