!944] Genus Lycoeides 105 
semblance of hook, triangular, laminate, proximally very broad 
falx, its very gradually tapering apex hardly exceeding in height 
the level of its strongly humped humerulus) : icarioides Boisdu- 
val (genotype) with its various subspecies (clamoring for a 
reviser) and four other species, viz.: acmon Doubleday-Hewit- 
son, sp. indeterm. (? chlorina Skinner), neurona Skinner and 
shasta Edwards; these four structurally smaller than the geno- 
type (with an uncus lobe distally somewhat grooved in lateral 
view but not actually revealing Stempffer’s process as it occurs 
in Aricia anteros Freyer), and 7. Hemiargus Hiibner: a curi- 
ously aberrant genus (somewhat allied to Chilades Moore) 
which is represented by hanno Stoll and in which I very provi- 
sionally retain isola Reakirt. An unexpected fultura superior 
is present in the former and is monstrously developed in the 
latter. 
For some time I have been especially concerned with the 
genus Lycoeides. In a preliminary paper (Nabokov, 1943 
[March, 1944], Psyche 50 :87 etc.) an attempt was made to 
clear up several taxonomic points mainly in regard to the ne- 
arctic section; 3 the palsearctic one is still badly confused taxo- 
nomically, especially because the type specimens of a number 
of races have never been examined structurally (German au- 
thors, for instance, blindly relying upon the haphazard commer- 
cial identifications of the Staudinger firm). These matters I 
shall discuss elsewhere, but it is necessary to make a few com- 
ments regarding the genotype. 
This is the U argus Linn.” of Hiibner ( [1823], Verz. bekannt. 
Schmett. 5 :69), nec Linn., which was selected as the type by 
Scudder (1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871:54; 
1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10:208), and since 
Hiibner’s argus is the “Argus” of Reverdin (1917, in Oberthur, 
Et. lep. comp. 14:22, fig. 3, uncus) it follows that it is also the 
“argyrognomon Bergstrasser” of Tutt [and Chapman] (1909, 
Brit. Butt. 3:205-208, pi. 50, fig. 2, uncus) and thus not the 
“ Ligurica ” of Reverdin (1917, op. cit. : 22, fig. 4, uncus) which 
is the “ismenias Meigen” of Heydemann (1931, Int. ent. Zft. 
25: 129) and the “argyrognomon Bergstrasser” of Forster (1938, 
3 With an incidental suggestion ( l.c . : 88, nota ) that cleobis Bremer falls to 
subsolanus Eversmann. I now find that Hemming (1938, Proc. R. Ent. Soc. 
London, 7 (1), B : 5-7, fig., male, type) had already come to the same conclusion. 
