PLEBEIUS. 161 



but not subdividing it, including also, as did Linne, each species of 

 the "hairstreaks," "blues," "coppers," and "skippers," under the name 

 Plebeius, e.g., Papilio Plebeius Querciis, Pap. Plebeius Argus, etc. In 

 1767, Linne (Syst. Nat., xiith ed., p. 787) used the names exactly as in the 

 xth ed., prefacing every species in the Plebeii, with the letters, "P. P.," 

 e.g., "P. P. Argus" etc., so that here again Plebeius is used in a modern 

 generic sense, but, in this edition, each page (pp. 787 et seq.) is headed 

 "Papilio. Plebius. R.," the " R." ( = Ruralis) not, however, being 

 applied to the individual species. There can be no question that, in 

 these cases, at least, the name Plebeius was applied in the singular form 

 to each individual species in the group. Considering, as we do, that 

 the basis of binomial nomenclature — species and genus — involves the 

 necessity of treating the group directly above the species as a genus, 

 we consider this use of Plebeius as essentially generic in the modern 

 sense. This, one suspects, was also Crotch's position (Cisiula Ent., i., 

 p. 60) when he says that Linne used Plebeius in a generic sense, as also 

 Kirby's (Syn. Cat., p. 653), although Crotch was wrong in stating that 

 Cuvier, in 1799, fixed argus, Linn., as the type of Plebeius. We are 

 informed by Prout (in litt.) that Kluk was the first author to use the 

 name Plebeius, in its singular form in a generic sense, and that, in 1780 5 

 after briefly describing the butterflies in general, he says (Zwierzt. Hist, 

 yat., iv., p. 81) that they may be grouped in live genera, the last 

 of which is — 



Genus v : Plebeius divided into — 



Rurales — Plebeius eupido, etc. 

 Uubicol/E — Plebeius comma, etc. 



which is exactly what Linne did in his Systema Naturae, ed. x., pp.483 

 ■et seq., where, having divided Papilio into various divisions, of which the 

 Plebeii are one, and after subdividing these into the Rurales and 

 Urbicolae, he calls each individual species in the Plebeii — " P.P." i.e., 

 "Papilio. Plebeius ," the names being placed at the top of every page on 

 wmich the Plebeiid species are described, whilst no further notice is taken 

 of the plural subdivision names, Rurales and Urbicolae. Whether we 

 agree that the name, as a group name of modern generic value, had its 

 inception with Linne (Syst. Nat., xth ed.), M filler (Faun. Friv.), or 

 Kluk (Zurierzt. Hist. Nat., vol. iv.), certain it is that it was not until 

 1871, w 7 hen Kirby used it in his Syn. Cat., app., p. 653, that it again 

 appeared as a genus, nor until Crotch's erroneous indication (Cist. Ent., 

 i., 60) that argus, Linn., was, on Cuvier's authority, the type of PHebeius 

 as a generic name, and Kirby's definite fixation of the same species as 

 type (Handbook, etc., ii., p. 87), that the name attained any modern 

 recognition as a genus. In 1896, we accepted (Ent. Rec., vii., p. 220) 

 Plebeius, for the genus of which argus, Linn. (= aegon, Auct.), is the 

 type, and since then the name has come into pretty general use. 

 Considering that originally the term "genus" and the "generic 

 name " corresponded with our term ""superfamily " and the "super- 

 family name," and that the genera were divided into " families," and 

 that it was not until some 60 years later, between 1817 and 1825, that 

 Latreille entirely reversed the use of genera and families and laid the 

 foundation of our modern system, it appears absurd to allow such 

 an excellent and well-founded old name as Plebeius to slip away and 

 be replaced by newer cognomens, whilst Nymphalis and others in 

 exactly similar case remain. As we have shown, Linne" and others 



