Cj02 BRITISH BUTTERFLIES. 



cxvii., 1-6 (1905). Argus, Dup., "Pap. Fr.," supp. i., p. 389 (1832); Cant., 

 " L^p. Var," p. 6 (1833). Polyommatus-[Nomiades], Stphs., " List," 2nd ed., 

 p. 17 (1856). 



The genus Lycaena was first diagnosed by Fabricius (III. Mat/., vi., 

 p. 285) in 1807, and was used in a most comprehensive sense, including 

 " bines," " coppers" and some " hairstreaks." Its description reads : 



Lycaena. — Palpi two-jointed ; the first joint fringed externally, the second 

 cylindrical, naked; antennas knobbed. Legs almost alike, fully developed*. 



(1) Wings two-tailed — Hesperia mars, echion. 



(2) Wings tailed — Hesperia amyntas, rubi. 



(3) Wings untailed ^-Hesperia meleager, arion, cor y don, adonis, ledi, vir- 



yaiireae, phlaeas. 



In 1815, Leach retained Lycaena for the "coppers" and "blues," 

 with the addition of C. rubi) whilst Oken also in the same year 

 restricted the name entirely to the blues (see preceding vol. p. 306) and 

 was followed by Ochsenheimer, so that Curtis' action in 1824 (Illus. 

 Brit. Knt. t fo. 12) naming phlaeas the type of Lycaena was altogether 

 •ultra vires. 



In 1838, Thon, in his article Lycaena, in Ersuh and Grabber's 

 " Allgemeine Encyclopadie der Wissenschaften und Kiinste," 3rd ed., 

 vol. xi., p. 139, cites only avion as an example of the genus, and so 

 restricted it to the special little group of which avion is probably the 

 best known species. Scudder, in 1875, overlooked this restriction, and 

 notes (Historical Sketch, p. 209) endymion (meleayer) ars the type, a 

 conclusion that fails because of Thon's previous restriction. 



Lycaena arion, Linne. 



Synonymy. — Species; Arion, Linn., "Syst. Nat.," xth ed., p. 483 (1758)-; 

 "Faun. Suec," 2nd ed., p. 283 (1761); Poda, " Mus. Graec," p. 76 (1761); 

 Scop., " Ent. Cam.," p. 177 (1763) ; Mull., " Faun. Frid.," p. 36 (1764) ; Hiifn., 

 '« Bed. Mag.," ii., p. 70 (1766); Linn., " Sys. Nat.," xiith ed., p. 789 (1767) : Fab., 

 " Syst. Ent.," i., p. 524 (1775) ; Schiff., " Schmett. Wien.," 1st ed., p. 182 (1775) ; 

 Fuess., " Verz.," p. 31 (1775); Rott., "Naturf.," vi., p. 7 (1775) ; Mull., " Zool. 

 Dan. Prod.," p. 115(1776); Esp., "Schmett. Eur.," pi. xx., fig. 2 (1777); pi. 

 lix. (cont. ix.), fig. 2, ? (1780); Bergs., "Nom.," ii., pp. 33-34, pi. xxiv., fig. 

 4; p. 71, pi. xliii , fig 4; iii., p. 6, pi. Ii., figs. 5-6 (1779) ; GOze, " Ent. Beit.," 

 iii., pt. 2, p. 17 (17S0) ; Fab., " Spec. Ins.," pt. 2, p. 122 (1781) ; Schneid., " Sys. 

 Been.," p. 261 (1787); Fab., "Mant. Ins.," p. 71 (1787); Bkh., " Sys. Besch.," 

 i., pp. 167, 280 (1788); ii., p. 232 (1789); Be Vill., "Car. Linn. Ent. Fn. 

 Suec," ii., p. 65 (1789); Lang, "Verz.," p. 55 (1789); Fab., "Ent. Syst.," 

 iii., pt. 1, p. 293 (1793); Bkh., " Bhein Mag.," i., p. 281 (1793); Lewin, "Ins. 

 Gt. Brit.," i., p. 78, pi. xxxvii., figs. 1-3 (1795); Hb., "Eur. Schmett.," pi. liv., 

 figs. 254-6 (1796) ; text, p. 44 (1806); Don., "Brit. Ins.," vi. p. 11, pi. clxxxiv., 

 fi<>s 1-2 (17i)7) ; 111., "Schmett. Wien.." 2nd ed., ii., p. 263(1801); Nchrank, 

 "Faun. Boica," ii., pt. 1, p. 209 (1801); Haw., " Lep. Brit.," p. 43 (1803); 

 Hffmsgg., " 111. Mag.," iii., p. 18o (1803); Herbst, "Nat. Syst. Ins.," xi.. p. 163, 

 pi. cccviii., figs. 7, 8 (1801); Panz., " Sch. Icon. Ins.," p. 109, pi. xcviii., fig. 6, ? 

 (1804) ; Latr., "Hist. Nat. Crust.," xiv., p. 119 (1805) ; Fab., "111. Mag.," vi., p. 

 286 (1807) ; Ocbs., " Die Schmett.," i., pt. 2, p. 4 (1808) ; Godt., " Pap. Fr.," i., 

 p. 219, pi. xi., fig. 2, pi. xi. quart., fig. 1 (1821). Teleius, Bergs., "Nom.," ii., 

 p. 73, j)l. xliii. figs. 5, 6 (1779). Telegone, Bergs., "Nom.," iii., p. 8, pi. Iii., 

 figs. 5-6 (1779). Telegones, Bergs., " Nom.," iii., p. 19, pi. Ixi , fi<is. 7, 8 (1779). 

 Alcon, Stphs., ': lllus. Haust.," i., p. 88 (182&) ; iv. app., p. 404 (1835). Cyane- 

 cula, Evers., "Bull. Soc. Nat. Mosc," ii., p. 207 (1848); Dbld.v. and Westw., 

 "Gen. Diurn. Lep.," ii., p. 491 (1852); Gerb., " Mon.," p. 19, pi. xxxvi., figs. 



* The Lycaenida were long described in this way, but incorrectly, for, though 

 the front legs of the ? s are adapted for walking, those of the (? s are not. This 

 seems to have been hist observed by Speyer in 1843. 



