OF THE DIUllNAL I,EPIDOPTEEA. 501 



of the name LyccBna to the Blues and Coppers. There seems no 

 reason for the French authors restricting Polyommatus to the 

 Coppers, and Lyccena to the Blues. 



Grenus Thtmele. — The first section corresponds to Goniurus, 

 Hiibn., the second to Hesperia, "Westw., and the third is hete- 

 rogeneous. Stephens restricts Thymele to Malv<s and Tages ; 

 but as these species had previously been placed in new genera by 

 Iliibucr, and there is no reason why they should be considered 

 typical, it would be better to regard Goniurus, Hiibn., as the 

 typical section of Thymele, or else to abandon the name altogether, 

 which would perhaps be unjustifiable. 



In 1809 Latreille published his ' Grenera Crustaceorum et In- 

 sectorum,' collating his own genera with those of Fabricius and 

 Schrank. Nevertheless, in his * Considerations Q-6n6rales sur 

 les Insectes,' published in the following year, he establishes his 

 genus Safyrus, synonymous with Maniola, Schrank, and Ilip- 

 parcMa, Fabr. This name, however, must be taken for Lasiom- 

 mata, West, (section Amecera, Butl.), as Mcera and Megeera are 

 called "le Satyre" by all the old authors, and ^'a^yrws was the 

 original specific name applied to the former species in the first 

 edition of Linnaeus's ' Fauna Suecica.' Moreover, Boisduval states 

 (' Species Generale des Lepidopteres,' p. 118) that Mcera and 

 Galathea were indicated by Latreille in his last manuscripts as 

 his types of Satyrus ; and the latter species, though not the 

 former, has long been separated from the genus Satyrus by all 

 the French authors. 



In 1816 Ochsenheimer applied the Fabrician and Latreillian 

 genera to the European Lepidoptera ; and Dalman founded 

 several others, mostly synonymous with already existing genera. 



In the same year Hiibner published a catalogue of described 

 Lepidoptera, attempting a very minute subdivision. But as he 

 relied almost exclusively on facies, his genera are both too nu- 

 merous and too heterogeneous. His genera are usually- treated 

 as manuscript — but unjustly, as I now think, although I formerly 

 expressed a different opinion ; for, on closely examining the work, 

 many of his genera will be found to be natural. The practice of 

 taking the names of his genera of Pieridce (Synchloe and JEurema, 

 for example), and using them for genera of NympTialidcB, cannot 

 bo too strongly condemned. There can be little doubt that the 

 name JEurema ought to be restored to the genus Terias of Swain- 

 son, and tha,t Syncliloe ought to be abandoned altogether as a 



