ARGYNN1S XIII, 
In 1864, Proc. Ent. Soc. Phila., I translated Dr. Behr’s description, applying 
the name Zerene, Bois., to the species No. 9. 
In 1869, Dr. Boisduval published his second paper on Californian Lepidoptera, 
utterly ignoring all that had been done by lepidopterists since 1852, and named as 
new thirty-five species of butterflies, the greater part of which have been described 
in Proceedings of scientific societies years ago. In the other orders Dr. Boisdu- 
val has proceeded with like indifference. 
In the last paper he intimates that his former diagnosis of . Zerene includes 
two species, and he applies that name to Monticola Behr, giving to the other, that 
of Hydaspe. Nevertheless according to the recognized rule in such cases, the 
names Monticola and Zerene will remain as Dr. Behr determined them. 
In both these papers the very general descriptions given often apply to two 
or more species, and some of them will continue to be a puzzle to students who have 
no access to the types in Dr. Boisduval’s collection. In many other cases it is im- 
possible to tell what the descriptions are intended to represent, as in Anthocaris lan- 
ceolata, C. Amphidusa, P. Leucodice, Mel. Pulchella, M. Cocyta, &c. There is also 
a constant tendency to discern European forms under what are called “local mod- 
ifications,” as in cases of A. Ausonoides, C. Eurytheme, Theda dumetorum, Coen. 
Californica and Galactinus, Thanaos Cervantes, Hesperias Comma and Sylvanus, 
which is calculated to perplex and mislead. With profound respect for Dr. Bois- 
duval, every lepidopterist in this country has cause to regret the confusion thus 
introduced into our fauna. 
