Jonathan:

First Ron wrote:

<<
...and use this single "supposed" hybrid as the basis for now making
Chlosyne and Phyciodes subgenera; as was done with all the "Callophrys";
based on _one_ apparent wild hybrid."
>>

You wrote:

<<
Come on Ron, that is not the reason Callophrys are lumped.
>>

Actually, I thought that was the same reason myself.  One wild hybrid.  What
was it, a supposed Mitoura x Callophrys intermediate?  I forget which
species.  Wasn't it Warren and Robbins that wrote that brief "note" in the
Lep. Soc. journal?  Some book authors ran with it and now a whole assemblage
of described genera are treated as "Callophrys" by many authors, most of
them simply "following the leader" like a train.  Yet I hear little about
the work of Kurt Johnson!  Again, it looks as though the armchair
taxonomists trump the ones who perform and publish the research.  Of course
I could be wrong, it's just that I can't recall a paper that lumps
Callophrys.

Sure, I realize that it's a subjective view, some of us see genera as more
finely-split, some as broader groupings.  So yes, someone can call the Olive
Hairstreak "Mitoura grynea" or "Callophrys gryneus" and be "right" either
way.  I prefer the subgenus treatment, but writing papers that state "status
nov." at the subgeneric level don't seem to be on top of anyone's list.

Can you cite an actual study that demonstrated how Callophrys, Mitoura,
Loranthomitoura, Incisalia, Cisincisalia, Deciduphagus and a slew of
Eurasian genera are all congeneric?

Maybe someday, all the phylogenies will be resolved and then someone can
come up with a standard method of dividing organisms into genera, then
subgenera.  That would certainly be welcome.

Best,
Harry