57 
same as that of Mr. Dale, but he separates bcetica and argiades from the 
other Blues under the generic name Lyccena, and breaks up Mr. Dale’s 
Hipparchia into Satyrus (semele), Pararge ( cegeria, megcera), and 
Epinephele, including hyperanthus in the latter. 
We have now traced the way in which classification has progressed 
from the simple system of pre-Linnasan times to the complex one of 
to-day, and have doubtless felt a thrill of patriotic pride at the impor¬ 
tant contributions of our own countrymen to its development. We 
have noted the existence from the earliest times of two conflicting 
opinions as to the basis upon which classification should rest, one section 
of authors being content with the superficial characteristics of the 
imago, whilst another, growing in numbers as knowledge became more 
profound and extensive, have insisted that a true scientific basis is alone 
to be found in the entire life historv. We have seen that considerable 
«/ 
differences of opinion have been manifested as to the order in which 
the several groups should be arranged, some regarding the Nymphalidce, 
others the Papilionidce , as the most highly developed and therefore as 
entitled to the post of honour. Most of the authorities have placed the 
Lyccenidce between the Papilionidce and the Nymphalidce, and there has 
been a very general agreement that the Hesperidce differ profoundly 
from the rest, and that of all the Pthopalocera they approach nearest to 
the Heterocera. We have also seen the single genus of the earlier 
authors sub-divided into the vast host of the later ones. A genus is a 
purely artificial creation, and it must needs be that opinions will vary 
as to its proper limits, some attaching generic value to much smaller 
differences than do others. In this, as in so many other matters, 
probabfy our safest guide will be the old maxim, “ medio tutissimus 
ibis.” 
A discussion followed, in the course of which Mr. W. F. Kirby 
made the foliowing remarks :— 
“ Linne appears to have been guided largely by size and general 
appearance in the arrangement of his groups, as he placed many 
Kymphalids (e.g. Morpho ) among his Equites , and certain Papilionids 
among his NympJiales. Such errors, of course, were unavoidable in the 
infancy of Entomology. 
Fabricius treated the Danai candidi and the Danai festivi as two 
groups, and restricted the name Danai to the Whites; Danaus was 
subsequently used by Esper almost in a generic sense. Unless we 
hold that we must have male mythological names to agree with the 
masculine Danaus, which would be most convenient on the score of 
expediency, we should probably have to recognise brassicce as the type 
of Danaus. 
Dr. Buckell makes no allusion to Hiibner’s Tentamen. This is a 
mere two-page list of genera with types, but is useful as fixing types. 
It appears to me to have been issued about 1810, for it contains one name, 
Glaucopis, apparently adopted from the Systema Glossatorum of Fabricius, 
published in Illiger’s Magazine, vol. vi., in 1807. It is more likely that 
Hiibner copied the name from Fabricius than that Fabricius copied it 
from Hiibner. 
The butterflies enumerated on p. 1 of the Tentamen are as follows :— 
