4 H. STEMPFFER 



and venation, shape of palpi, antennae, legs, etc. He divided the family into only 

 two subfamilies, the Lipteninae peculiar to the Ethiopian regions, and the Lycaen- 

 inae. In his second work he retained his original classification with minor modifica- 

 tions and he intercalated the numerous species described between 1898 and the date 

 of publication of the parts of Seitz's work. However, in the same period, Bethune 

 Baker (1910, 1918, 1922 and 1924), published a number of monographs in which he 

 made great use of genital characters. T. A. Chapman also published a Revision of 

 the sub-family Zizeeriinae (Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 1910 : 480 et seq.). Aurivillius 

 (in Seitz, 1914-25) alluded to these monographs but refused to modify the basis of 

 his classification on the plea that classification could not be based on the characters 

 of one sex only. He still included in a very extensive genus, Cupido (with type- 

 species C. minimus Fuessly, one of the Everinae), a motley crowd of species belonging 

 to the Lampidinae, Plebeiinae, Zizeriinae, etc. 



My disagreement with Aurivillius is not due to a difference of opinion concerning 

 nomenclature and priority of description, it is a fundamental difference in concepts 

 of classification. I think that classification should reflect phylogeny (as far as we 

 can ascertain it), while Aurivillius contended that the best classification is that which 

 enables an entomologist to determine easily and quickly any given specimen bv the 

 study of its external appearance. 



However great our respect for the considerable achievement of Aurivillius, who 

 was the first to bring some kind of order out of the chaos of the rich Ethiopian Fauna, 

 I do not think that nowadays we can accept his method. I contend that we should 

 attempt to do for the Ethiopian Fauna what has been done for the palaearctic Fauna, 

 i.e. try to construct a natural classification. 



Unfortunately the study of the Ethiopian Fauna lags far behind that of the 

 palaearctic and nearctic faunas. Besides the excellent monographs of Bethune 

 Baker and Chapman, which cover only a small part of the Ethiopian Fauna, we have 

 only fragmentary studies consisting of faunistic lists and descriptions of new species. 

 The male genitalia of many genera, especially in the subfamily Lipteninae, have 

 never been studied or, at least, the results of such studies have never been published; 

 up to now no comparison of the different genera has ever been attempted, neither 

 has any attempt been made to group them into natural subfamilies. 



It is this lack of a comprehensive outlook that I wish to try to remedy by making 

 use of the knowledge available and adding to it such knowledge as I have acquired 

 by personal observations. In the course of the last 25 years I have dissected and 

 studied the male genitalia of many Ethiopian Lycaenidae, some from specimens sent 

 me for determination, others from specimens kindly lent to me by Museums and 

 private collectors. Altogether, I have examined more than 6,000 specimens 

 belonging to 939 different species, out of a total of 1,263 known species. Previously 

 I had examined some 500 palaearctic, nearctic and Indo-Malayan species ; the 

 knowledge thus acquired served me well in assessing relationship. Nevertheless I 

 wish to make it clear that I have no intention to supersede the works of Aurivillius, 

 which will still remain indispensable for the determination of species. My aim is 

 quite different. 



