ON THE GENERIC PHANTASIES OF S. H. SCUDDER. 
119 
species on Plate VIII (Figs. 12, 12), which is as different from Mr. Edwards’ description of his males as from Satyrus Podarce, Esp. ; 
he quotes only our female figures against Mr. Edwards’ males, whilst Mr. Edwards himself says in his description that the female was 
“not known,” and whilst our male is a browm butterfly, as dark as Alope on both surfaces, Mr. Edwards’ species, according to his test, is 
a much larger butterfly, “light yellowish brown” above and whitish beneath, more like the 9 of our species, cited by Scudder as a 
synonym, but Mr. Edwards himself stated that he knew not the female — that his 9 examples were all males. 
Heliconius Charitonia is given as Apostraphia Charithonia. Under Chlorippe Herse and C. Lycaon are disguised beyond all recogni- 
tion Apatura Clyton and A. Celtis, Bdl. et Lee. Our common Limenitis Ursula, Fabr., is designated as Basilarchia Astyanax. Vanessa 
is cut into four different genera, viz. : (1.) Polygonia for the Graptas ; (2.) Eugonia for V. J. Album and Californica ; (3.) Aglais 
for Milberti in solitary grandeur. Language fails us — our hand refuses to go further — even the ink on our pen pales — must we record 
it, that actually the fourth genus taken from Vanessa Mr. Scudder has called Papilio and placed in it the one insect Vanessa Antiopa, L. 
Surely no man, not gone stark mad, would be guilty of such unheard of, aye, undreamt of absurdities, and — but each page of this most 
puerile affair exposes new and wilder extravagances. A separate genus called Speyeria is constructed for Argynnis Idalia — on what 
grounds ? Because, says Mr. Scudder, “outer half of upper surface of hind wings with two rows of pale markings on a blackish 
ground, none of the spots confluent;” were I Dr. Speyer 1 really would prosecute, but alas, what do I say, are the unfortunate answera- 
ble in law for their vagaries ? After Speyeria comes the genus Semnopsyche, Scudder — for what ? to receive Argynnis Diana ; here is the found- 
ation of Semnopsyche : “basal half of hind wings unspotted beneath, or with only one or two faint light spots after this come Argynnis, 
showing in his. arrangement that Scudder considered Idalia further removed from Oybele, Atlantis, etc., than from Diana. Euphydryas, 
Scudder, contains a single species, the common Meliteea Phceton, whilst its close ally, M. Cfhalcedona, is transmogrified into Lemonias 
Chalctdona. Thessalia is made for Meliteea Leanira, Bdl., Theona, Men., and Thekla, Edw. For Meliteea Harrisii we now have Ginclidia 
Harrisii. Charidryas is for Meliteea Nycteis and Oarlota ; and Anthanassa for Mel. Texana, Edw., and Punctata, Edw. He ends with 
Hypatus for the Libytheidse, having made out of the Nymphalidse of N. Am. 56 genera and 187 species, averaging about 3J species to 
each genus, and God save us from what is to follow if this be only “the Prodromus !” 
In the same volume his colleague, Grote, has even outstripped him ; for in a catalogue of the N. Am. Sphingidfe (not including 
Sesia and Trochilium) he has 36 genera and 74 species — about two species to the genus ! It is scarce worth while to go over these freaks 
of this vainest of egotists ; suffice it to say, that Deilephila Gallii is here Hyles Chamcenerii ; Philampelus is cut into three genera, i. e., 
Dupo, Philampelus and Argeus ; Smerinthus into five, i. e., Paonius, Calasymbolus, Smerinthus, Amorpha and Cressonia — the latter at the 
expense, as previously stated by us, of Polyptychus, Hub. ; Sphinx is divided into Lethia, Dolba, Dilophonta, Hyloicus, Lapara, Diludia, 
Macrosila and several others. Mr. Moschler has ably criticised this wholesale manufactur, ig of genera, and Grote, in a feeble attempt 
to vindicate himself, keeps in a rambling way to the subject for a dozen lines or so, then goes wandering off into the realms of Orni- 
thology, quoting from a paper on Sainia Columbia, by Dr. Hagen, which has nothing to do with the subject, and is evidently far above 
his (Grote’s) comprehension, at any rate ; from this he gets to a paper by Prof. Riley, which causes him much wonderment, because 
that author wouldn’t put our N. American Apatura s into a different genus from the allied European ones; he then is not agreed that 
in proposing a generic name an author is obliged to construct a perfect diagnosis, and, he might have added, when it is impossible to do 
so — and excuses himself by telling us there must be differences of opinion in Entomology as in other matters, and finally winds up 
with a covert hit at Morrison, delicately intimating that two of that author’s species are synonyms, as in fact evervthing must be that 
had not gone through his mill ; then comes a modest notice about “my suggestions,” “affinities,” something about the mountains — I 
mean “the animals which formerly may have taken refuge on Mount Washington,” to escape the flood, we suppose, and we all wonder 
what the deuce he has been trying to get at, and come to but one conclusion, that it was to exalt Grote above Moschler, and all creation 
besides. 
Here is an idea of the great fundamental principle that Scudder and Grote are working on : They take the first mentioned 
species, if it happens to suit their purpose, in any one of Hubner’s innumerable “Coitus,” and make that the type of the genus; thus, 
the present genus Vanessa embraces insects placed by Ilubner in Polygonia and Eugonia-, the first name mentioned in the former is 
Polygonia Triangulum, Fabr., ( Vanessa Egea, Cram.), about as aberrant in appearance from the rest enumerated as it can well be, and 
not resembling any of our known species in the sub-genus Grapta : so Scudder avoids this one, passes by the next, C. Aureum, L., like- 
wise heeds not Cramer’s Progne, but seizes on C. Album as the type of Polygonia-, thus he has resurrected Polygonia, which must stand 
as a distinct genus for the reception of those Vanessans previously comprised in Kirby’s sub-genus Grapta. Row we come to Eugonia-, 
Hubner’s type of this coitus was a rather unfortunate one, as the second species enumerated in his previous coitus Polygonia happens to 
be the first one which he placed in this next coitus Eugonia, namely, Angelica, Cram., which is but a synonym of C. Aureum, L., a 
Japanese species which is as close to such species as Polychlorus and J. Album as it is to Progne and C. Album-, but, to make all things 
square, Hubner, with wonderful sagacity, places it in each of his two coitus, only under a different name in each one, so that neither 
Linne nor Cramer wonld have their species in this instance ignored ; so extremes meet, as the last species (J. Album, Esp.,) in Polygonia 
is only the same as the first under another name, or rather under two other names. Scudder, in adopting the genus Eugonia, took no 
notice of the first mentioned species, but passing over it and the next { Rhinopalpa Polynice, which has no more to do with Polychlorus 
and C. Album than it has with Ageronia Fornax), and likewise the next ( V. Album, Wien. Verz.,=./. Album, Bdl. et Lee.), he comes on 
Polychlorus which he makes his type of Eugonia, and then the first of the two species he puts in that genus is the identical J. Album= 
V. Album=L. Album, Esp., which he has ignored as the type in favor of Polychlorus. 
Grote, in his N. Am. Sphingidte, imitates Scudder, in following Hubner, but altering, of course, from the latter as his occasions 
may require.^ For instance: in adopting Hubner’s genus Lethia he takes the last species ( Sphinx Gordius) mentioned as his type, in- 
stead ui die first, ( Sph . Ligustri;) and Sph. Drupiferarum, the nearest American ally to Ligustri, he has placed in another genus. Hub- 
ner’s coitus Polyptychi, which contains Juglandis, he ignores, as it would conflict with his own genus Cressonia, created for that species. 
All that is yet wanting to complete Grote’s work is to follow Hubner again and to head his genera with short lucid descriptions, (Scud- 
der has already done so,) which would enable the student at a glance to know the species included in their countless tribes, stirps, fam- 
ilies, coitus, etc. Here is Hubner’s diagnosis of his family Angulati, comprising his Paonice and Mimantes ( Smerinthus Ocellata, Myops 
and Exccecatus in the first, Sm. Tilice in the second ;) “The body beautifully coloured ; the wings bluntly angulated, lightly shaded.”* 
If that isn’t enough to identify one of the Smerinthi a mile off) I don’t know what is. 
In Hubner’s coitus Acherontias are Ach. Atropus, L., Sph. Chionanthi, Abb. & S., (Mac. Rustica, Fabr.,) and Ach. Morta (Lethe, 
West ;) the first the common European death’s-head, the last the African species, and between them is put our Sphinx Rustica ( Chionan- 
thi,) for the one reason, doubtless, that, like the other two, it has a skull-like marking on the back of the thorax ; but I much fear Hub- 
ner, like his imitator, Grote, did not know half the things he wrote about, for in his next coitus Cocytius we again find Chionanthi under 
its older name of Rustica. In the fifth stirps, Echidnce : “The body small ; the wings large, peculiarly ornamented ;”f the third family 
of this stirps, Communiformes, is thus described : “the wings of common form ; variously ornamented and coloured •”% would the sa- 
gacity M any man living recognize Eacles lmperialis or Cith. Regalis as belonging to the above family ? Stirps 7, family D., are coitus 1, 
“*Der Rumpf farbig ausgezeichnet ; die Flugel stumpf eckig, sanftschattig angelegt.” Verz. p. 142. 
fDer Leib klein ; die Flugel gross, sonderbar gezeiehnet. Verz. p. 151. 
JDie Flugel gemeinformig ; unterschieden gezeiehnet und gefarbt. 1. c., 153. 
