2 Psyche [March-June 
nyms have been tracked down, others are tentatively suggested 
but cannot be finally disposed of until the types are examined 
(or neotypes fixed). The brief bibliographical references given 
are merely intended to indicate the identity of the forms dis- 
cussed. Beyond the inclusion of some random notes on certain 
phases of pattern, macroscopical characters are not discussed, 
and no attempt has been made to revise in this respect the 
(fortunately rather few) races that have received names. 
In spite of the work accomplished since 1909, by Tutt and 
Chapman in England and by Stempffer in France, entomologists 
in this country employ the term “ Plebejince ” simply as a eu- 
phemism for the “ Lyccena ” of German authors, or “Blues,” 1 and 
“ Plebejus ” is used for a number of heterogeneous Nearctic 
species only one of which ( scepiolus Boisduval) belongs struc- 
turally to the genus of which the Palearctic Plebejus argus 
Linnaeus is the type. In a way the initial blunder was Swinhoe’s 
who while correctly giving a subfamilial ending to the group 
which Tutt’s intuition and Chapman’s science had recognized 
(“tribe” Plebeidi which exactly corresponds to the Plebejince 
of Stempffer) as different from other “tribes” (i.e., subfamilies) 
within the Lyccenidce , failed to live up to the generic diagnoses 
which he simply copied from Chapman’s notes in Tutt and tried 
to combine genitalic data he had not verified or did not under- 
stand with the obsolete “naked v. hairy eyes” system (which at 
Butler’s hands had resulted in probably the most ludicrous 
assembly of species ever concocted, see for example Butler 1900, 
Entom. 33:124), so that in the case of several Indian forms 
which Chapman had not diagnosed, Swinhoe placed intra- 
generically allied species in different subfamilies and species 
belonging to different Tuttian “tribes” in the same subfamily. 
In reality the subfamily Plebejince is extremely well differen- 
’^Thus McDunnough uses “ Plebeiince ” in his ‘‘Check List” of Nearctic Lepi- 
doptera (1938 Mem. S. California Acad. Sci. 1:26), and thus Comstock uses 
“ Plebejince ” in his work on Rhopalocera of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands 
(1944, in Miner, Scient. Survey P. R. and V. Isis. 12:492), but the two references 
the latter author appends (Swinhoe 1910, Lep. Indica 8:10 and Hampson 1918, 
Novit. Zool. Tring 25:385) are most misleading: the first, because Syntarucus 
Butler, a genus structurally indistinguishable from Leptotes Scudder (which is 
one of the two genera assigned by Comstock to “ Plebejince Swinhoe”) is placed 
by Swinhoe in a different subfamily, namely Lampidince (now known as Cato- 
chrysopince) , and the second, because Hampson’s (perfectly invalid) use of 
“ Plebejus ” and “Plebejince” refers to a section of a different family, namely 
Erycinidce (now known as Riodinidce ) . 
