CHIONOBAS II. 
times, as, for instance, in the introduction of Hiibner’s name (Eneis for the genus 
Chionobas, Bois. Hlibner divides the species in this genus into two separate 
groups, Eumenis and (Eneis, and in both mixes them up with* species of the 
genus Satyr us. Under Eumenis he places Autonoe, Aello, Semele, and Tarpeja. 
Undei (Eneis, JSorna , Bore, Belceno, Jicttci , and Aretliusa. The generic charac¬ 
ters which he gives for Eumenis are : ‘ the upper side of the wings banded with 
ochre-yellow, under side of the hind wings white fringed and delicately marbled ; ’ 
for (Eneis, 4 both wings on upper side spotty rust-yellow, below marbled gray 
banded.’ Thus Hlibner has not even recognized the very natural genus 
Chionobas as such, let alone characterizing it sufficiently.” And as Mr. A. R 
"Wallace states, Anniv. Address,1872, p. 18, while discussing the subject of the 
Ilubnerian genera, “ Such a mode of defining genera (by fades) is undoubt¬ 
edly superficial, and it can only be by the purest accident that a group so charac¬ 
terized can correspond in extent to any real genus.” It needs nothing farther 
than the definitions of these groups as given to prove that neither of them em¬ 
brace Iduna and its allies. 
