9 
1891.] W, Doherty — A List of the Butterflies of Lugano. 
is dubious, and some of his species worse than dubious. But in any 
case he has let a flood of light into one of the darkest corners of ento- 
mology, and all future work in this family must start from his as a base. 
I do not see any reason for accepting his term Euploeince, instead of 
the commonly received Danaiclce or Danaince. The name Danaus neces- 
sarily falls, having been used for Pieridoe. But Danaida and Danais are 
both older than Limnas, and there can be no similar objection to them. 
Mr. Scudder, with his usual conscientiousness, has adopted Danaida, 
the earlier of the two names. But I think his verdict may be reason- 
ably traversed on the ground of the irregular formation of Danaida and 
the universal use of Danais. It can hardly be seriously maintained 
that the latter name cannot be used on account of its resemblance to 
Danaus. So the group obviously remains the Danaidce (or Danaince ), 
the genus Danais, and its type plexippus* Anosia falling before it. 
Mr. Moore’s primary division of the family is into two groups, the 
Limnaina, including Danais and llestia, and the Euploeina including 
whioh seems to vary in different specimens. Mahintha was founded on a local race 
of Euplcea core. E. simulatrix was placed first in Vadchra ( Crastia ) and then in 
Menama, though it obviously cannot come, into either, or into the “ section ” in 
which both are plaoed. 
* The name now applied to a butterfly known to every American farmer as 
archippus. These useless changes of name now so much insisted on, especially by 
American naturalists, are bringing scientific nomenclature into well-doserved dis- 
repute among all outsiders. Surely thore ought to be a Btatute of limitations j 
security that some one, turning over musty volumes of pre-scientifio times, shall not 
make all existing works obsolete. At present we stop short at Linnsons. This is 
purely an arbitrary line. The next generation will perhaps go back to Ray and 
Swammerdam ; with the aid of a little zeal and imagination quite a number of 
generic names can be found in their books. The first false step taken was the 
acceptation of Hiibner’s childish work as an authority. There was Adolias, a genus 
described by such a profound and discriminating writer as Boisduval, and accepted 
by all naturalists. Finally, some one discovered that a few years before the date 
of Boisduval’s great work, Hiibner, a contemporary, not of Linnaans, but of Latreille, 
had invented a genus Euthalia, described merely as “ dark with white and red 
spots,” containing lubentina and adonia, and plaoed in an imaginary family, prettily 
named die FrBhliche or The Joy fill Ones E. aconthea, and E. evelina (tho latter along 
with an African Aterica and a European Apaturu ) were at the same time placed 
in different genera of another imaginary family called die Muntere, or The Lively 
Ones. And so, to the confusion of naturalists all over the world, Euthalia took the 
place of Adolias. Lepidopterists have yielded to an infinity of similar changes. It 
remains to be seen whether coleopterists will be equally submissive. Mr. Crotch 
now proposes to alter the names of a number of the best-known genera of beetles, 
names consecrated by a century of use. I cannot help wishing his opponents all 
success in the struggle against ce mdencontreux droit de priority, as M Deyrolle 
calls it. 
2 
