PLEBEIIDI. 151 



combined, and in this sense it was used by Miiller, Pallas, Fabricius, 

 Esper, Goeze, Haworth, and others, but, in 1798, Cuvier restricted it 

 (Tabl. FAem., p. 591) to the Ruralids, so that Plebeii became synonymous 

 with the Plebeii rurales of Linne, and cited Papilio argus, L., as a 

 type of the Plebeii, whilst he carried over the Plebeii urbicol^e of 

 Linne to the name Heaperia, Fab., citing- as a type of the latter nialvae, 

 L. (op. cit., p. 588). This action was followed by Latreille, in 1802, 

 when he subdivided (Hist. Nat., iii., pp. 397-8) the Plkbeii of Linne 

 into — 



1. Les petits porte-queue. Example Papilio pruni, Linn. 



2. Les argus. Example Papilio argus, Linn. 



3. Les bronzes. Example Papilio virgaureae, Linn. — 



so that, by this time, the French authors were entirely modifying the 

 original use of Plebeii, and substituting this name for the original 

 Ptn rales which they were allowing to lapse. 



Previous to this, however, in 1780, Kluk, ::: after briefly describing 

 the butterflies in general, says (Zu-ierz. Hist. Nat., iv., p. 81) that they 

 are to be grouped in five genera, the last of which is — 



Genus V. Plebeius divided into — 

 Rurales — Plebeius cupido, etc. 

 Urbicol.e — Plebeius comma, etc. 



Practically, this is identical with Linne's use of the name in the 

 Si/s. .Xat., ed. x., and with Miiller's in the Faun. Ins. t'rid., pp. 37 et 

 sen., but Kluk calls it (and his other divisions) a genus, whilst Linne 

 called the whole superfamily Papilio, the genus (i.e., "kind "). Here w T as 

 already a modification of the original idea of the " genus," carried out 

 by Latreille and others shortly after to its ultimate end, viz., that, in 

 classification, the genus should not, as indicated by Linne, be the name 

 of the " kind " or " sort " of insect being dealt with — " butterfly," 

 " beetle," etc., subdivided, as knowledge grew, into families, subfamilies, 

 and tribes, but that it should be the "lowest," not the "highest" 

 group name, and rank next only above the species. The fact that all 

 the early names were really intended by Linne (and others) as 

 descending group names is shown by the almost uniform punctuation 

 — " Papilio. Plebeius," " Papilio. Plebeius. Ruralis," etc. Here, 

 then, w T e have shown that Linne, Miiller, and Kluk, used Plebeius in 

 the modern genetic sense, the latter terming it "genus." Kluk, 

 however, used the name in quite as heterotypical a manner as did all 

 the early authors, and it was not until lc>72, that Crotch (Cistula 

 hint., i., p. 60) indicated an/us, Linn., as the type of the genus, 

 erroneously supposing that Cuvier had already done so in 1798, when, 

 in reality, the latter only noted it as an example of the whole group — 



Les Plebeiens — Plebeii — Papilio argus — 



and did not use it at all generically. After Crotch's indication, Kirby, 

 in 1896, definitely fixed the type as argus, Linn. (=aegon, Auct.), 

 The tribal name, therefore, that we have selected for the purpose of 

 grouping together a great number of close-allied genera, comprising, 

 in fact, a large proportion of our Palaearctic species, is to be traced 

 back to Linne. 



■■' We have never been able to see this work for ourselves, and are entirely 

 indebted to Mr. L. B. Prout, for the information relating to the use of the name 

 Plebeius by this author. 



