May, 1871] 265 
REMARKS UPON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE HESPERIDA. 
BY A. G@. BUTLER, F.L.S., &c. 
In a recently published part of the Regensburg “ Correspondenz- 
blatt,” my paper on the Hesperide in the British Museum (Ent. Mo. 
Mag., p. 55, Aug., 1870, e¢ seg.) has been rather roughly handled by 
Dr. Herrich-Schaffer ; and as that gentleman has sent me the pages of 
his “‘ Prodromus” in which his criticisms appear, I feel bound to take 
some notice of them. 
In my paper above referred to, I objected somewhat strongly to 
the manner in which Dr. Herrich-Schaffer had indicated a number of 
new species, the space accorded to each being one or two lines of a new 
form of description, unaccompanied by localities. Dr. Herrich-Schaffer 
replies, that the absence of localities is due to the poverty of his col- 
lection, which being, to a great extent, derived from ancient cabinets, 
has been, for the most part, furnished with localities from the works of 
Donovan and Fabricius, “ In Indiis,” &e.; then, after enumerating the 
various cabinets, public and private, to which he has had access,* to my 
infinite relief he tells us that he “ never intended to give descriptions, 
and, least of all, descriptions after the manner of Hewitson’s or 
Felder’s.” 
In his remarks respecting my identification of Hesperia, Dr. 
Herrich-Schaffer gives me the credit of departing from my own rules, 
but as I am convinced that he has not rightly understood the rules by 
which I was guided, I will again state them as plainly as possible :— 
1. Ifa genus be insufficiently characterised, and no type be spe- 
cially mentioned by the author, the person who subsequently divides 
the genus ought to take the first species mentioned as the type. 
2. Ifa genus be divided by its author into two or three sections, 
that section which agrees best with the description ought to be con- 
sidered typical. 
Following out these rules, I adopted the first species of the 
second section as the type of Hesperia, and, as I considered the 
slightly marked variety of P. Ladon of Cramer to be that species, I 
rejected Swainson’s genus in favour of Fabricius’; as regards the “ paullo 
major” of the Fabrician description, it is nothing to the vague com- 
parison in the description of Pap. Pirithous, Fabr. (an Ivias compared 
with an Amauris). 
——— 
| 
* Amongst these he mentions the collection of the British Museum, which, to my certain 
knowledge, he cannot have seen for the last eight or nine years, and which, having been only 
recently arranged, must, when he saw it, have been fully in a condition to justify his remark — 
“« Dass bei dieser Gelegenheit keine verwendbaren Notizen gessamelt werden kénnen.”—A. G, B. 
