HYPOLIMNAS MISIPPUS CAPTURED AT SEA. 315 
calling the calthella group Micropterya, but afterwards changed it to 
Hriocephala. The general erroneous use of these terms has since been 
in the direction here indicated. Lord Walsingham and_ others, 
however, have in their recent work made the necessary correction. 
The facts, so far as we have discussed them in The Natural History 
of the British Lepidoptera, vol. i1., give the following conclusions : 
Superfamily .. MICROPTERYGIDES. 
Family .. MIcRoprERYGIDAE. 
Genus .. Micropterix (Micropteryx), Hb., ‘‘ Verz. bek. Schm.,’” 426 
(1826) [Type: M. calthella]. 
Species .. calthella, L., seppella, Fab. (included by Hiibner). 
The British species of the genus are—calthella, Li., seppella, Fab., arun- 
cella, Scop., mansuetella, Scop., thunbergella, Fab., awreatella, Scop. 
Superfamily .. ERIOCRANIIDES. 
Family .. ERIOCRANIIDAE. 
Genus .. Lriocrania, Zell., “ Linn. Ent.,” v., 322-3 (1851) [Type: 
E. purpurella]. 
Species .. Sparrmanella, Bose., fastuosella, Zell., subpurpurella, Haw., 
chrysolepidella, Zeller, senipurpurella, St.,. purpurella, 
Haw. 
The British species of the genus are—purpurella, Haw., semipurpurella, 
St., wnimaculella, Gett., sparrmanella, Bose, subpurpurella, Haw., 
fastuosella, Zell., sangtt, Wood, fimbriata, Walsm., &c. Snellen, in 
the Vlind. Ned. Micr., 1063-4, 1067 (1882) omits chrysolepidella, 
which, Durrant says, thus ceases to be an available type. 
The generic synonymy, therefore, works out as follows : 
1. Micropteryx, Hb., ‘‘ Verz. bek. Schmett.,” 426 (1826); Stephs., ‘Ill. Br. 
Ent. Haust.,” iv., (361) 423 (1835); Kirby, ‘‘ Lloyd’s Nat. Hist.,”’ Lep., v., 
p. 315. Hriocephala, Curt., ‘‘ Br. Ent.,”’ expl. pl. 751 (1839). 
2. Hriocrania, Zell., ‘Linn. Ent.,” v., 3822-3 (1851). Micropteryx (Eriocrania), 
Snellen, ‘‘ Vlind. Ned. Micr.,” 1063-4, 1067 (1882). Micropteryx, Hein., 
Meyr., &e. 
The immense strides that have recently been made in general 
entomological knowledge by the great majority of our lepidopterists, 
who would have been contemptuously styled ‘collectors’’ a few years 
ago, by the old school of systematists, leave me with less compunction 
in discussing this matter in a short article. We all understand now 
that the nomenclature relating to genera must of necessity be in a 
state of flux as knowledge advances, and that, however inconvenient 
changes may be, a fixity of generic nomenclature would of necessity 
represent a condition of stagnation in our onward march, a condition 
that we should all certainly most seriously deplore. 
Hypolimnas misippus captured at sea. 
By Professor EDWARD B. POULTON, M.A., F.R.S., F.Z,S., &e. 
Referring to the notes on this species in vol. xi., p. 822, and vol. 
xii., p. 80, of The Hntomologist’s Record, | am now, owing to the kind- 
ness of Captain EK. P. Ellis, able to supply a full account of the 
circumstances under which he made the interesting capture of three 
females (two of the variety inaria) and two males, over 500 miles from 
land. The notes sent me by Captain Ellis were made by him on 
the sailing ship Wéinefred on a voyage from Australia, and are as 
follows :— 
“‘ May 5th, 1893. In 00° 36’ N. lat. and 26° 42’ W. long., a swarm of butter- 
flies about the ship ; they appear to be all of one kind.” 
