now grouped into families which, were thus arranged:— Papilionidce, 
Pieridce, Bhodoceridce, Vanessidce, Nymphalidoe , (limited to Limenitis and 
Apatura), Satyridce, Lyccenidce, Erycinidce, and Hesperidce. The change 
of position of the Lyccenidce is to be noticed. Satyr us was made to 
include cegeria, megcera , semele, ianira, tithonus and hyperanthus ; Poly- 
ommatus was now applied to the Coppers and Lyccena to the Blues; for 
clavus and pamphilus what, according to Kirby (E. M. M., viii., p. 42), 
was only a MS. name of Guenee’s, Chortobius was adopted. I have 
never met with this name in any other systematic work, and in his 
later supplement Doubleday replaced it by Coenonympha. In 1861 
Staudinger’s first catalogue was published, but as there is no substantial 
difference, from our present point of view, between it and the second, 
it may be passed over. In the same year Bates “ of the Amazon ” 
propounded his views of classification in the Journal of Entomology. 
He maintained that the differences between the existing families were 
of very unequal value ; that for example the difference between Pieridce. 
and Papilionidce was much less than that between either of them and 
Hesperidce. He accordingly proposed to constitute five families, and to 
subdivide three of them into sub-families with names ending in ince. 
In 1861 he arranged his families thus— Hesperidce, Papilionidce, 
Lyccenidce, Erycinidce and Nymphalidce. Three years later, in what he 
speaks of as a more matured plan, the arrangement is exactly reversed. 
He divided Nymphalidce into six sub-families, only three of which, 
Danaince, Satyrince and Nymphalinoe, contain British representatives ; 
Erycinidce into three, and Papilionidce into two, Pierince and Papilionince. 
In 1867 he recast Erycinidce, and gave to that one of the three sub¬ 
families which contains the solitary indigenous representative of the 
family, lucina, the name of Nemeobiince. In 1869 A. G. Butler, in a 
Catalogue of. the Insects described by Fabricius contained in the British 
Museum, adopted Bates’ system, but enlarged the number of sub¬ 
families by dividing Lyccenidce into Lyccenince (Blues and Coppers) and 
Theclince. In the Satyrince, semele and hyperanthus are placed together 
in the genus Hipparchia but for the latter the sub-generic name Sutyrus is 
used ; cegeria and megcera are in separate genera, Pararge being used for 
cegeria and Amecera, a name introduced by the author two years 
previously, for megcera. Nymphalince is divided into ten groups, of 
which only Apaturce, Limenitides, Vanessides and Argynnides have British 
representatives. Butler separated boeticus from our other Blues under 
the Hiibnerian name Lampides, and used Lyccena for the remainder, and 
Chrysophanus for the Coppers ; he divided the Hair-streaks into two 
genera, Thecla being applied to quercus and betulce, and Bithys, another 
Hiibnerian name, to the rest. He followed Westwood in adopting the 
Hiibnerian Leptosia in place of Leucophasia, and used Pamphila 
(sylcanus), Cyclopides (paniscus ), Pyrgus ( malcce ), and Nisoniades 
( tages ). 
The year 1871 brings us to Newman, Staudinger and Kirby. New¬ 
man adopted Boisduval’s three main groups founded on the mode of jrnpa- 
tion, but placed the Pendulce, which he called Suspensi, before the Succincti. 
He divided his Suspensi into Spinigeri, those with spine-bearing cater¬ 
pillars, and Limaciformes, those with slug shaped caterpillars; and his 
Succincti into Onisciformes, those with wood-louse shaped cateiq3illars 
and Cylindracei, those with cylindrical larvEe. He also changed 
Boisduval’s name Involuti to Celantes, and combined the Erycinidce and 
