1970] 
Garde , Shapiro J Clench — Lethe 
73 
? Papilio canthus: Fabricius 1775 (partim) } Syst. Ent. : 486. 
Argus canthus: Scopoli 1777, Introd. Hist. Nat.: 432. 
Satyrus canthus: Godart 1821, Encycl. Meth. 9: 465, 493. 
N eonympha canthus: Westwood 1851, in Doubleday, Westwood, and Hew- 
itson, Gen. Diurn. Lep. 2: 375. 
N eonympha cantheus ( nec Godart 1821, see below) : Morris 1860, Cat. 
Lepid. N. Amer. : 10. 
Hipparchia boisduvallii Harris 1862, Ins. Inj. Veg. (Flint ed.) : 305, fig. 
128; type locality “this State” (Massachusetts), type now lost; no 
neotype designated. 
Deb.is canthus: Herrich-Schaeffer 1865, Correspbl. Zool.-Min. Ver. Regens- 
burg 19: 72. 
Pararge canthus: Butler 1868, Cat. Satyridae Br. Mus. : 123. 
Euptychia canthus: Kirby 1871, Syn. Cat. Diurn. Lep.: 55. 
Pararge boisduvallii: Edwards 1872, Synopsis N. Amer. Butt.: 26, 
Argus eurydice: Scudder 1872, Syst. Rev. Amer. Butt.: 6. 
Satyrodes eurydice: Scudder 1875, Bull. Buffalo Soc. Nat. Sci. 2: 243. 
Satyrodes canthus: Smith 1884, Bull. Brooklyn Ent. Soc. 6 : 119. 
? Satyrodes canthus ab. bovoeri F. H. Chermock 1927, Bull. Brooklyn Ent. 
Soc. 22: 118; type locality Port Hope, Ontario; type not located, stated 
by dos Passos to be in Carnegie Museum, but not found. (Infrasub- 
specific name with no standing in nomenclature.) 
Satyrodes eurydice transmontana Field 1936, J. Ent. Zool. (Pomona) 28: 
22; type locality Compton, Quebec; no type designated. 
Satyrodes eurydice transmontana f. $ ravosoni Field 1936, J. Ent. Zool. 
(Pomona) 28: 22; type locality Bloomfield, Michigan; type deposited 
in U. S. National Museum. (Infrasubspecific name with no standing 
in nomenclature.) 
Lethe (. Enodia ) eurydice: R. L. Chermock 1947, Ent. News 58: 29. 
The descriptions of both eurydice Johansson and canthus Linnaeus 
are too scanty to restrict on internal evidence to either of the 
sympatric northeastern species, both of which occur at the type 
locality (Shapiro, 1970a). If that locality (Philadelphia) is accu- 
rate, there can be no doubt that Johansson’s description applies only 
to a member of this group, even though no mention is made of 
eyespots on the forewing above (an objection to this usage, raised 
by Harris, 1862 and Edwards, 1897). No type of eurydice or 
canthus (which was proposed explicitly as a replacement name for 
eurydice and hence has the same type) exists in the British Museum 
(Natural History) or in the De Geer collection at the Naturhis- 
toriska Riksmuseum, Stockholm. 
When appalachia (see below) was described as the southern sub- 
species of eurydice , the latter name became firmly associated with 
the assumed “northern” subspecies whose color and pattern were 
contrasted with appalachia by Chermock. It seems desirable to 
