CHIONOBAS II. 
shown to be a uniform tan color ; the primaries are broader than in Californica, 
and less produced apically, the fuscous marginal border is scalloped on its inner 
edge across the entire wing; the deep brown shade of the oblique bar on disk 
passes quite around the cell, and joins the equally deep color of costal margin; 
on secondaries there is a long fuscous stripe from outer angle to middle of wing. 
The under side agrees with Californica in being nearly deprived of markings, 
but the discal band of secondaries is quite different; it is narrower by one half 
at its origin on costal margin, and is more regularly scalloped on its exterior 
side. It is also scalloped in same way on the basal side, and in this respect it 
resembles no one of the allied species. The description expressly states that 
both the basal and exterior outlines of the band are “ cremated.” 
As the four species of this group differ so decidedly in respect to this discal 
band, I have thought it well to indicate more particularly the peculiarities of 
each, by the following cuts. 
Gigas. 
Californica. 
I have retained the generic name Chionobas, Boisduval, for the species herein 
figured, in preference to that of (Eneis, Hlibner, which of late has been forced 
into prominence, for three reasons: first, that Boisduval is the earliest author 
who defined and limited the genus ; second, that in my opinion (Eneis, as ap¬ 
plied to the genus so defined and limited, has no authority whatever, it having 
been not only a mere catalogue name, but a name given to an assemblage or 
batch of butterflies, embracing some that belong to Chionobas and some that 
belong to Satyrus ; and thirdly, whether it has authority or not, it certainly 
cannot be made to embrace one of these species. I regard the so called Hiib- 
nerian genera of butterflies as mostly worthless, and would reject nearly every 
one which has not been introduced by a subsequent author in a proper way, 
that is, under definition and limitation, and then, though the mere name be 
Hiibner’s, the authorship of the genus should be attributed to the systematist 
who so properly uses it; of course to the wholesale overthrow of Hiibner s 
priority in the matter of genera. Dr. A. Speyer, in a late issue of the Ent. 
Zeit., Stett. 1875, v. 36, p. 98, in his paper on “ Europaisch-Amerikanische 
Verwandtschaften,” uses these words in reference to this very question of Chiono¬ 
bas versus (Eneis : “ The limit of the permissible has been overstepped many 
