RURALIS. 275 



skippers Hesperia Urbicolae, the individual species in each case being 

 called Ruralis or JJrbicola, and betulae became Hesperia Ruralis betidae, 

 JRuralis still being, in the modern sense, the genus to which the 

 " hairstreaks," etc., were attached. It should be clear, therefore, 

 from our contention (Ent. Bee, xvii., pp. 211-212), that we do not use 

 Linne's " plural adjectives," Urbicolae and Hurdles as genera, as 

 suggested by Carpenter (Irish Xat., xvi., p. 172), but these, being the 

 oldest plural forms by which the groups were known, are accepted as 

 the superfamily, family, etc., names, with the addition of the recognised 

 terminations, the singular forms as used by Poda, Barbut, Fabricius, 

 and others, being what we apply as genera, and as Barbut exemplified 

 Ruralis (not Rurales) by the Linnean species betidae, no. 220, we 

 have no possible course open to us, but to accept Ruralis betulae as the 

 accurate name for our brown " hairstreak " butterfly. 



Barbut, having fixed betulae as the type of Ruralis, closed all the 

 later genera of which betulae was made the type. Thus, in succession, 

 we find Thecla, Fab., type fixed in 1821 by Swainson as betulae, Linn., 

 Zephyrus, Dalm., type fixed by Dalman in 1816 as betulae, Linn. 

 Aurotis, Dalm., is Dalman's section of Zephyrus containing betulae, 

 and therefore falls as a synonym of Zephyrus, Dalm., Thecla, Fab., and 

 Ruralis, Barbut. 



One of the most amazing bits of synonymy is that by Scudder, in 

 which he attempts to retain Thecla for spini, and other Strymonid 

 species, although proving betulae to be the type of this genus. He 

 correctly notes {Historical Sketch of Genera, p. 279) of Thecla: 



1807. — Fabricius, "111. Mag.", vi., p. 286 — betulae, spini, quercus. 



1815. — Oken, " Lehrb.", i., p. 721 — employs it for the same and other species. 



1815.- — -Leach, " Edinb. Encycl.", p. 718 — betulae, pruni, quercus. 



1821-2. — Swainson, " Zool. 111.", i. ii., p. 69 — specifies betulae as type. 



1829. — Curtis, "Brit. Ent.", fo. 264— designates betulae as the "type." 



1840— Westwood, " Gen. Syn.", p. 88— does the same. 



1872.— Crotch, " Cist. Ent.", i., p. 66— says that betulae is "type." 



Then he adds — 



1870. — Kirby, " Journ. Linn. Soc. Lond.", x., p. 499 — says " it would be far 

 more convenient, and quite justifiable .... to take spini as 

 type." 



1872. — Scudder, " Sys Rev.", p. 29 — specifies spini as type. 



That is, after betulae had been for 50 years quite legitimately and accurately 

 named and renamed the type of Thecla over and over again, a mere "ipse 

 dixit" of convenience on the part of Kirby is to overthrow the legal method 

 of selection. Scudder's acceptation of what is convenient is unfortu- 

 nate, but his final bit of reasoning is astounding, viz., that " betulae 

 cannot be taken as the type on account of the foundation, in 1816, of 

 Dalman's Zephyrus, and consequently spini must be chosen." It is 

 unfortunate that Dalman renamed the Fabrician Thecla as Zephyrus, 

 and chose for this, and one of its constituent sections Aurotis, betulae 

 as type, as betulae, being shortly afterwards selected by Swainson as 

 the type of Thecla, reduced both Aurotis and Zephyrus to the position 

 of synonyms of this genus, and the latter to the position of a synonym 

 of Ruralis, to which Barbut had already assigned the same type. 

 The genus has never been diagnosed in its limited sense ; even modern 

 authors, who have separated it from the Strymonids have united it 

 with Bithys (antea, p. 274) under the name Zephyrus. We are 



