Seas wn aa Rete See ears Nama oy maken estate Cee oars Sa Reet oe on eee Raeraetent tants ee Veta ZS hee byes: penn . USEUM LIBRARY viru VN UN 3 5711 00015 1 We NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM > FOUNDED 1893 So. He HH = eat" = = Nei Navaravararavarararara//7p AE k( | THE SOUTH LONDON Entomological & alatural History Society, (ESTABLISHED 1872) HIBERNIA CHAMBERS, LONDON BRIDGE, S.E, 0S OFFICERS & COUNCIL. 1898. President. JAMES WILLIAM TUTT, F.E.S. Vice- Presidents. R. ADKIN, MES! \ HO TUNALEY, EES. @ouncil. T. A. CHAPMAN, M.D., A. HARRISON, F.E.S., F.C.S. F.E.S. W. |, LUCAS, BA. Cl AR IK H. MOORE. A. W. DENNIS. R. SOUTH, F.ES. Gon. Curator. Hon. Mibrarian. W. WEST (Greenwich). H. A. SAUZE, Hon. Creasurer. T. W. HALL, F.E.S., 61, West Smithfield, London, E.C. Hon. Secretaries. S. EDWARDS, F.L.S., F.Z.S., F.E.S., etc. (General Sec.), Kidbrook Lodge, Blackheath, S.E. H. J. TURNER, F.E.S. (Report Sec.), 13, Drakefell Road, St. Catherine’s Park, S.E. f f a/ od A RIM OD | Bi ere ay ford A pa WHE SOUL LONDON Entomological and dlatural Aistorp Society, HIBERNIA CHAMBERS, LONDON BRIDGE, S.E, The Society has for its object the diffusion of Biological Science, by means of Papers and Discussions, and the formation of Typical Collec- tions. There is a Library for the use of Members. Meetings of the Members are held on the 2nd and 4th Thursday evenings in each month, from Eight to Ten p.m., at the above address. The Society’s Rooms are easy of access from all parts of London, and the Council cordially invite the co-operation of all Naturalists, especially those who are willing to further the objects of the Society by reading Papers and exhibiting their Specimens. PP PP PPL LL LPL PE PPLP SPP SII SOBSCRIPVION. Seven Shillings and Sixpence per Annum, with an Entrance fee of Two Shillings and Sixpence. All Communications to be addressed to the Hon. Gen. Secretary, STANLEY EDWARDS, F.L.S., etc., Kidbrook Lodge, Blackheath, S.E. DRRADRADRAA A AAAAADDADDADDADAN PDP PRP PP PPP PPI PAST PRESIDENTS: 1872 ... J. R. WELLMAN. 1885 ... R. Soutn, F.E.S. 1873 «.. a 1886 ... R. Apxkin, F.E.S. LOA ses $5 1887 ... - 1875 ... A. B. Farn. 1888 ... T. R. Bittups, F.E.S. LO Oles F 1889 ... * 1977). Jab. BARREDT, 1890 ... J. T. CARRINGTON, F.L.S. 1878 ... J. T. WILLIAMS. 1891 ... W. H. Tuewet_t, Pu.C. 1879 ... R. STANDEN, F.E.S. 1892 ... C. G. Barrett, F.E:S. 1880 ... A. FICKLIN. 1893 ... J. J. Weir, F.L.S., etc. 1881 ... V. R. Perkins, F.E.S. moo, ... E. Srep, Wl.S: 1882 ... T. R. Bittups, F.E.S. 1895 ... D. W. Harr, Ren:S: 1883 ... J. R. WELLMAN. | 1896 ... R. Sourn, F.E.S. 1884 ... W. West, L.D.S. 1897 ... R. ADKIN, F.E.S. PIS tO WiEMBE RS. eee Chief subjects of Study :—4, Hymenoptera; 0, Orthoptera ; e, Hemiptera ; x, Neuroptera; c, Coleoptera; ¢, Diptera; 7, Lepidoptera; oo/, Oology; orn, Ornithology ; 7, Reptilia; 7z, Mollusca; cv, Crustacea; 6, Botany ; mz, Microscopy ; e, signifies Exotic forms. YEAR OF ELECTION. 1886 ApKIN, b. W., Brandon House, Morden Hill, Lewisham, S.E. TOV: 1882 ADKIN, R., F.E.S., Vice-President, Wellfield, 4, Lingard’s, Road Lewisham, S.E. 2. £895 ASHBY, SIDNEY R., 8, Canterbury Terrace, Maida Vale, N.W. 2. 1895 AsHDOWwN, W. J., Belmont Road, Leatherhead. 7. 1883 ArmorE, E. A., F.E.S., 48, High Street, King’s Lynn, Nor- folksy 2; 1887 Barctiay, F. H., F.G.S., F.E.S., Knotts Green, Leyton, Essex. l, orn, paleontology. 1884 BarRKeEr, H. W., F.E.S., 147, Gordon Road, Peckham, S.E. Z. 1896 Barnett, THos. L., Royal Hill, Greenwich, S.E. 72. 1887 BaRREN, H. E., 46, Lyndhurst Road, Peckham, S.E. 7. 1889 BARRETT, C. G., F.E.S., 39, Linden Grove, Nunhead, S.E. 1896 1889 1888 1898 1877 1897 1893 1898 1896 1895 1887 l,m. BarRTLETT, A. H., M.A., 34, Vanbrugh Park, Blackheath, S.E. Beaumont, A., F.E.S., The Red Cottage, Pond Road, Black- heath), S'Es\ 7, ¢,. orn: BENNETT, W. H., F.E.S., 15, Wellington Plac., Hastings. 4, c. Bevins, W., 51, Narbonne Avenue, Clapham, S.W. JZ. Bitutups, T. R., F.E.S., 20, Swiss Villas, Coplestone Road, Beckham S:E. 2,0, 6d, he: BisHop, E. B., Lulworth Grove Lane, Kingston-on-Thames. 7. Bonp-SmiruH, W., Potton, near Sandy, Beds. 72 BouskELL, F., F.E.S., Market Bosworth, Nuneaton. 2 Bowen, F. A., 11, Buckland Crescent, Hampstead, N.W. 2. Bowman, K., 18, Victoria Road, Clapham Common, S W. Z. Brices, C. A., F.E.S., Rock House, Lynmouth, N. Devon. Z, m, n, 0, British fishes. 1V YEAR OF ELECTION. 1987 BrRices! fy HH.) MiA., FES) Rock) House Lynmouth Ne Devons. /. 1891 Briccs, H. Mrap, c/o Mrs. Pagdain, St. Mary’s Road, Ealing, W. 4, orn. 1890 Bricut, P., F.E.S., Roccabrunna, Bournemouth, 7. 1890 Bristow, B. A., F.E.S., Durlstone, Champion Hill, S.E. 2. 1893 Brisrowr, L. W., Durlstone, Champion Hill, S.E. 2 1895 Brooxs, W., Grange Hall, Rotherham. 7 1890 Brown, E. W., Capt., 2nd Royal West Kent Regiment, Dublin, Ireland. 2 1897 Browne, H. B., B.A., Godolphin School, Hammersmith, W. 1897 Burr, Maccoim B., F.Z.S., F.E.S., Bellagio, East Grinstead. 1890 1888 1889 1886 1877 -1872 1872 1897 1898 1895 1888 1896 1887 1879 1884 1885 1898 1891 Butter, W. E., Hayling House, Ox'ord Road, Reading. JZ, ¢. CanspaLeE, W. D., F.E.S., Sunny Bank, South Norwood, Sale Z, Cant, A., F.E.S., 10, Chandos Street, Cavendish Square, W. Z. CARPENTER, J. H., F.E.S.,! “Shirley,” St: Jamesis” Road? Sutton, Surrey. 7. CaRRINGTON, J. T., 1, Northumberland Avenue, W.C. JZ, ez. CuamPION, G. C., F.Z.S., F.E.S., Heatherside, Horsell, Woking, Surrey. ¢. Cuaney, W. C., 32, Stroud Road, Woodside, S. Norwood, S. Es (Alon member). ih, 2, '¢. CuapmMan, T. A., M.D., F.E.S., Elms Croft, Elms Road, Redhill} Surrey 17: CHATTERTON,, F. J. (Si HEEs:,. 78, Clissold Road; "Stoke Newington, N. Z. Cuipps, F. W., 1, Castlenau Terrace, Barnes, S.W. CHITTENDEN, D., Carlton Villas, Hunter Road, Willesboro’, Ashford, Kent. 2. Criark, F., Paddington Infirmary, W. mz. CuaRK, J/ A., -F.E:S., LADISSOM.P.S., 57, “Weston tank, Crouch End, N. CriopE, W. (Life member). Cook, A. E., 31, Lower Road, Rotherhithe, S.E. Z, orn, r. Croker, A. J., F.E.S., go, Albert Road, Walthamstow. 2 Crow, E. J., 26, Tindal Street, North Brixton. JZ, Dacik, J. C., Mayfield, 105, Upper Richmond Road, Putney, S.W. m, Z. ee enn YEAR OF ELECTION. 1888 Dawson, W. G., Plumstead Common, Plumstead, Kent (Zz/e member). . 1889 Dennis, A, W., 48, Mansfield Street, Kingsland Road, N.E. Z. 1890 DoprEE- Fox, Rev. E. C., Castle Moreton Vicarage, Tewkes- bury. 2 1884 Dosson, H. T., F.E.S., Ivy House, Acacia Grove, New Malden, Surrey. 4 orn. 1898 DonistHorPE, H. St. J., F.Z.S., F.E.S., 73, West Cromwell Road, South Kensington. c. 1897 Drury, W. F., F.R.H.S., Upland, Birkenhead Avenue, Kingston-on-Thames. 2. EOoO) EDWARDS, S-, E192, F.Z.9% “ESH-S.,- Aon sea, -Kidbrool: Lodge, Blackheath, S.E. 4 e7@. 1896 ELpRipGE, A., Christ Church Schools, Alpha Road, Surbiton Ele e7: 1886 Enock, F., F.L.S., F.E.S., 21, Manor Gardens, Upper Holloway, N. ad, mz. 1889 FaRRANT, M., Jun., 137, St. Thomas, Exeter. /. 1894 FELL, FRANcIS, 21, Whitehall Road, Anerley, S.E. 7, Toso) LENTON, ho Ha VER. C:S:. (MOR C{P.) Eel-lnst.. angstones 1872 1891 1887 1889 1891 1886 1886 1895 1884 1889 1895 Ealing, W. Fickuin, A., Norbiton, Surrey. 7. FILER, F. E., 58, Southwark Bridge Road, S.E. 2 FLETCHER, W. H. B., M.A., F.E.S., Fairlawn House, Worthing, Sussex (Life member). 7. Forp, A., 48, Rugby Koad, Brighton. 7 «. ForRESTER, A. C., 99, Endlesham Road, Balham, S.W. 7. EREMEIN, E.'S... MR:C.S., CLR! @ IP EBS.) 33." St. Peters Street, Tiverton, Devon. J. Frouawk, F. W., F.E.S., 34, Widmore Road, Bromley, Kent. LZ. Orn, 1, gen. Z00. FurNEAvuxX, W., F.R.G.S., “ Penlee,” Ommaney Road, New Cross, S.E. 4 pond life, gen. 200. Gisp, L., 148, St. James Street, Montreal, Canada (Life member). L. GREENE, Rev. J. G., M.A., F.E.S., Rostrevor, Clifton, Bristoly) 2 GRIFFITHS, G. C., F.Z.S., F.E.S., 43, Caledonia Place, Clifton, Bristol. Z, ed, vi YEAR OF ELECTION. 1893 Hatt, A., 16, Park Hill Rise, Croydon, Surrey. 4, eZ, ool. 1888 Hatt, A. E., F.E.S., Norbury, Sheffield. 2. 1884 Hatt, T. W, F.E.S., Hon. Treasurer, Stanhope, The Crescent, Croydon, Surrey ; and 61, West Smithfield, E.C. 2. 1891 Hamm, A. H., 52, St. Mary’s Road, Oxford. 7. 1892 Harrison, A., F.C.S., F.E.S., Thames Sugar Refinery, 1884 1888 1898 1889 1888 1889 1886 1887 1884 1886 1898 1884 1888 1894 1898 1884 1872 1896 1890 Loe 1892 Silvertown, F. Hetps, J. A., Newstead Lodge, 91, Wood Vale, Forest Hill, Sul. 7: HitimaNn, T. S., F.E.S., Eastgate Street, Lewes, Sussex. Z.. HittswortH, FE. H. R., 45, Manbey Street, Stratford. E. 2. Hincu FF, Miss K. M., Worlington House, Instow, N. Devon. I EROTE Hopkins, H. E., 153, Camden Grove North, Peckham, Sole? Horng, A., F.E.S., Ugie Bank, Aberdeen. 2. JAGER, J., 180, Kensington Park Road, Notting Hill, W. 2Z JENNER, J. H. A., F.E.S., 4, East Street, Lewes, Sussex. @Z jc, a, Wye. Josson, H., 1, Rock Villas, Maynard Road, Waltham- stow. /. Kane, W. F. bE V., M.A., F.E.S., M.R.I.A., Drumreaske House, Monaghan, Ireland. 7, mz, marine invertebrata. KaveE W. J., F.E.S., Hastings Road, Leicester, and Worcester Court, Worcester Park, Surrey. 2. KENWARD, J., Rosslyn, New Eltham, Kent. 7. Knicut, E., 2, Lichfield Grove, Church End, Finchley, N. Lamp, H., Acacia Place, Upper Faut, Maidstone. 4, orn. Leman, F. C., F.E.S., Blackfriars House, Plymouth. 2. LEveEtT, C., 107, Brockley Road;iS.E. 72 Luspock, The Right Hon. Sir Joun, Bart., M.P., D.C.L., FR-S., F.L.S., F.G.S.,° Haies:,. etc, High, Elmsy Down: near Farnboro’, Kent (Hon. member). h, b. Lucas, W. J., B.A., 21, Knight’s Park, Kingston-on-Thames. ty O00; Tits McARTHOR, H., 35, Averill Street, Fulham, W. Z. M‘LacuHian, R., F.R.S., F.LS., F.Z.S., F.E.S., Westview, Clarendon Road, Lewisham, S.E. (on. member). n. Main, H., 45, The Village, Old Charlton, S.E. 7, vil YEAR OF ELECTION. 1886 1889 1885 1881 1888 1896 1896 1896 1880 1889 1887 1887 1889 1872 18901 1892 1898 1894 1884 1888 1883 1880 1888 1897 1889 1897 1887 1896 1888 Mancer, W. T., F.E.S., too, Manor Road, New Cross, S.E. URG a CI: MaNSBRIDGE, W., F.E.S., Nieuwehaven, 132, Rotterdam, Holland. Mera, A. W., 79, Capel Road, Forest Gate, E. 2. Mites, W. H., F.E.S., The New Club, Calcutta, India, m1, 0. MitTcHeELL, A. T., 5, Clayton Terrace, Gunnersbury, W. Monincton, H. W., 8, Weswell Road, Streatham Common, S.W. - 8: MoNTGOMERY, ARTHUR M., 32, The Grove, Ealing, W. 72. MontTcomeEry, EpmMuND M., 32, The Grove, Ealing, W. /. MontTiERo, Senor A. A. DE C., F.E.S., Rua de Alecreon, Lisbon. Moore, H., 12, Lower Road, Rotherhithe, S.E. 4 4, d, e /, Chien i 7/10. Morris, C. H., School Hill, Lewes, Sussex. 7% ¢, m. NeEvinson, E. B., 7, Staple Inn, W.C. 7, stalh-eyed crusiacea. NIcHOLSON, W. E., F.E.S., Lewes, Sussex. J, OupHaM, C., 2, Warwick Villas, Chelmsford Road, South Woodford, Essex. 72. PALMER, J. F., Ewell Road, Surbiton Hill, Surbiton. PANNELL, C., East Street, Haslemere. Conchology. PARKIN, E., 3, Birley Street, Battersea, S.W. Z. Prac, A. W., 9, Holly Road, Chiswick. 7. Pearce, A. E., 12, Marius Road, Upper Tooting, S.W. 34. PEARCE, J., 4, Borough High Street, London, S.E. PEARCE, W. A., 88, Croxted Road, West Dulwich, S.E. 7, é. Perkins, V. R., F.E.S., Wotton-under-Edge, Gloucestershire. US lay Ob PERKS, F. P., 41, St. Martin’s Lane, Charing Cross, W.C. zoology, mt, pond life. PERRY, G, A., 29, Elmers End Road, Anerley, S.E. 7. PERRY, Rev. J. F., Oxford Road, Banbury. 4 «. PREST, E. E. B., Belle Vue, Newlands Park, Sydenham,S.E. 2 PorrRiITT, G. T., F.L.S., F.E.S., Crossland Hall, Hudders- field. 72. Potter, A. T., Whangarei, Auckland, New Zealand. Rep, W., F.E.S., Pitcaple, Aberdeen. 7, continental J. YEAR vill OF ELECTION. 1887 1887 1893 1894 1888 1890 1887 1895 1891 1886 1897 1888 1897 1890 1890 1882 1873 1872 1872 1894 1895 1895 1894 1895 1887 1886 Rick) D2 ]., 23, Great Ormond Street, WiC. 107-7: Rosinson, A., B.A., F.E.S., 1, Mitre Court, Temple, E.C. | 2. Rosinson, F. J., Jun., 49, Charing Cross, W.C. 2. ROBINSON, LEIGH, 54, Boundary Road, N.W. 2 Rogson, H., 5, Winterwell Road, Brixton Hill, S.W. @ 6. RownTrREE, J. H., Westwood, Scarborough. 2. RovUTLEDGE, G.B., F.E.S., Tarn Lodge, Heads Nook, Carlisle. 2. Ryg, B. G., F.E.S., 212, Upper Richmond Road, Putney, S.W. es SABEL, E., F.Z.S., F.E.S., F.R.G.S., Linton House, South Side, Clapham Common, S.W. SaLwey, R. E., F.E.S., Sun Gate, Hook Road, Kingston- on-Thames. JZ. SANDISON, JOHN, 2, Francis Grove, Wimbledon, Surrey. 2. Sauzk, H. A., Hon. Librarian, 4, Mount Villas, Sydenham Hill Road,.S.E.. :2: SMITH, JAS. NICHOLSON, 28, Eastdown Park, Lewisham. 7Z SMITH, WILLIAM, 13, St. Mirren Street, Paisley. 7. SMITH, WALTER, 1, Arundel Villas, Hampton Road, Twickenham. JZ SoutH, R., F.E.S., roo, Ritherdon Road, Upper Tooting, SiWeete STANDEN, R., F.L.S., F.E.S., Thorpe Hall, Colchester (Zz/e member). t. Step, E., F.L.S., Portscatho, R.S.O., Cornwall, 4, m, orn. StTEvENS, S., F.L.S., F.E.S., Loanda, Beulah Hill, Norwood, Sih TarpaT, Rev. J. E., M.A., The Common, Weybridge. 2. THORNHILL, W. B., Castle Cosey, Castle Bellingham, near Drogheda, Ireland. 72 ToLuurst, J., “ Glenbrook,” Beckenham, Kent. 7/, TRENERRY, E. H., 3, North Road, Clapham Park, S.W. 2 TunaLey, Hy., F.E.S., Vice-President, 30, Fairmount Road, Brixton Hill, SiWe oz TurRNER, H. J., F.E.S., Hon. Report Secretary, 13, Drakefell Road, St. Catherine’s Park, S.E. JZ, orn. Tutt, J. W., F.E.S., Prestdent, Rayleigh Villa, Westcombe Hill, Blackheath, S.E. 7 YEAR OF ELECTION. 1837 1889 1889 1880 1888 1886 1897 1888 1888 1887 1896 1888 1872 1878 1887 1891 1888 1893 1895 1886 VERRALL, G. H., F.E.S., Sussex Lodge, Newmarket. @. Ving, A. C., 45, Temple Street, Brighton, Sussex. /. WaInwRIGHT, C. J., F.E.S., 147, Hall Road, Handsworth, near Birmingham. JZ. WALKER, J. J., R.N., F.L.S., F.E.S., 23, Ranelagh Road, Marine Town, Sheerness. JZ ¢. Water, R., 2, Grand Parade, Upper Richmond Road, Putney.) SW. 97: WatsiIncHAM, The Right Hon. Lord, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.Z.S., F.E.S., ete., Merton Hall, Thetford, Norfolk (Hon. member). 1, orn. Watters, B. H., 48, Finsbury Pavement. orz. Warne, N. D., 8, Bedford Square, W. 7. WarNgE, W. F., 8, Bedford Square, W. Z. WATERHOUSE, E. A., 23, Spencer Road, Putney, S.W. Waters, A. H., B.A., 48, Devonshire Road, Cambridge. 7. m. Wess, S., Folkestone Road, Dover. 7. West, W., Hon. Curator, 8, Morden Hill, Lewisham Road, Sl Sie eee: West, W., L.D.S., Cyprus Villa, Lewin Road, Streatham Common, S.W. 4 mz. WuiIFFEN, W. H., 49, Granville Park, Lewisham, S.E. 2. Wiuuiams, H., 6, Langthorne Terrace, Ashburnham Road, Southend-on-Sea. /. Wink.Ley, M. H., 9, Glen Eldon Road, Coventry Park, Streatham, S.W. JZ. Wo tre, J. J., Skibbereen, Co. Cork, Ireland. 2 Woop, H. L., The Old Grammar School House, Ashford, Keene nec: Wricut, W. H., Secretary’s Department, Somerset House, Strand, iW.G-. |Z. Members will greatly oblige by informing the Hon. Sec. of any errors, additions or alterations in the above Addresses and descriptions, REPORT OF THE COUNCIL, 1897. HE Council of the South London Entomological and Natural History Society, in presenting the Twenty- Fifth Annual Report to Members, is pleased to be able to state that the Society continues to maintain a satisfactory position. The present membership is 173 in number, and composed as follows :—Ordinary, 120; country, 44; life, 5; and honorary, 4. The finances also remain on a sound basis. Some twelve original papers—several of them being of high scientific value—were contributed by the following gentlemen :—Mr. TourTt, four; Prof. A. RADCLIFFE GROTE, three; the Rev. Jos. GREENE, one; Mr. Hewitt (York), one; Mr. STEP, one; Mr. TUNALEY, one: and Mr. TURNER, one. In addition to these two discussions were held, one introduced by Mr. C. G. BARRETT and the other by the PRESIDENT, and two special demonstrations were given with the lantern by Messrs. F. W. CLARKE and A. Harrison. The Council is much gratified that Members so readily come forward to render the ordinary meetings gene- rally interesting, attractive, and instructive. The exhibits at the Meetings have been quite up to the average in interest, and the Council is pleased to find that the practice among Members of furnishing concise notes of their observations is becoming more general. It also re- gards with satisfaction the fact that an increasing number of Members are turning their attention to orders other than Lepidoptera, and that an interest is taken in the fauna of countries outside Britain. With reference to European Rhopalocera, for example, many valuable notes have been contributed on species closely allied to those comprised in our own limited fauna. During the summer months the Meetings were, if any- thing, more poorly attended than in previous years, owing, X1 no doubt, to the fine weather for outdoor work, and to the great national festivals. Yet the balance was more than made up by the full attendance during the remainder of the year, so that the average at the twenty-three Meetings held exceeded twenty-seven per Meeting. The Field Meetings, which for some years were so attractive and useful to the Society in promoting the social intercourse of its Members, were somewhat in abeyance this year. Only two were held, viz. May 29th Chalfont Road (Mr. SoutH), and July 3rd Reigate (Mr. TURNER). The Council hopes for better results in this department in the future ; and it is suggested that a Special Committee should be formed of those interested in Field Meetings to organise and arrange these affairs. At the September meeting of the Council it was decided that in future the ‘‘ Proceedings’”’ should be issued in two parts ; Part I immediately after June, to contain the papers read during the first half of the year, and Part II after the Annual Meeting, to contain the papers read during the second half of the year, together with the reports of the Meetings, &c., &c. It is hoped that this will be more satisfactory both to the authors of the papers themselves and to the Members, who are unable for various reasons to hear the papers read, and who would, under the old arrange- ment, only be able to peruse them long after date. Some members of the Council are of opinion that the time has arrived when an Exhibition should again be held, and confidently look forward to the coming year as that in which the Society may once more obtain an accession of strength by giving a grand public demonstration of the attractiveness and interest in a study of the natural objects, animate and inanimate, around us. The collections of the Society remain under the able care of Mr. WEstT of Greenwich, and at the present time consist of a collection of British Lepidoptera, a considerable number of Canadian Lepidoptera, a collection of pupa cases and preserved larve of British Lepidoptera, the ‘‘ Tugwell” Herbarium (a very complete collection of British plants), a large number of Coleoptera and of British shells, and a Xi type collection of British Orthoptera. Numerous species are wanted to complete the above, especially among the Micro-Lepidoptera and Coleoptera, of which the Hon. Curator will be only too pleased to forward lists and to receive donations. The Council wishes particularly to thank Mr. Matcotm Burr, F.E.S., for the type collection of British Orthoptera which he so kindly presented to the Society during the year. The Library has been during the year under the able care of Mr. H. A. Sauzs, and the following books and pamphlets have been added, for which the Council desires to tender hearty thanks to the donors: ‘British Wepidoptera,” Vols. Ill--+and> [Ve by Gases Barrett, from the AUTHOR. ‘‘ Butterflies of Indiana,” from Mr. Moore. ‘* Addresses to the City of London Entomological Society,” ‘‘Entomologists’ Record” for 1897, “‘ Alpine Rambles,” by ie W.. Tutt,trom Mr Turn, ‘‘ The Zoologist ’’ for 1897, from Mr. NEWMAN. ‘“The Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine ” for 1897, from Mr. M’LACHLAN. ‘“The Entomologist”’ for 1897, ‘‘ Economic Entomologist,” by Prof. Smith, from Mr. SouTH. “ Science Gossip ’”’ for 1897, from Mr. CARRINGTON. ‘‘Address to the Entomological Society of London, 1896,” by Prof. Meldola, from Mr. TURNER. “Guide to the British Museum Natural History,” ‘‘ Guide to the Galleries of Mammalia,” “‘ Guide to the Reptiles and Fishes,” ‘‘ Guide to the Shell and Starfish Galleries,” ‘‘ Guide to the Fossil Mammals and Birds,” ‘‘ Guide to the Fossil Reptiles and Fishes,” ‘“‘Guide to the Mineral Gallery,” “‘Index to the Collection of Minerals,’ ‘“‘ Introduction to the Study of Minerals,”’ “‘ Study of Rocks,” ‘‘ Study of Meteo- rites,” ‘‘Guide to Sowerby’s Models of Fungi,” ‘‘ Guide to the British Mycetozoa,”’ and ‘‘ Guide to the Geological Department,” from the TRUSTEES OF THE BRITISH MUSEUM. “Knowledge ” for 1897, from the PUBLISHERS. X111 ‘‘Larvee of British Lepidoptera,” Vols. VI. and VII., Ray Society, by PURCHASE. ‘‘ Favourite Flowers of Greenhouse and Garden,” Vols. II. and III., by E. Step, from Mr. WARNE. “List of Yorkshire Neuroptera,” by C. G. Porritt, from the AUTHOR. ‘*How to Collect Coccide,” by T. D. A. Cockerell, from the AUTHOR. The Librarian reports that the MS. of the catalogue of the Library, containing the titles of some five hundred books, magazines, reports, separate papers and pamphlets, is ready for the printers. It is hoped that this may shortly be pub- lished, but it would be necessary to make a small charge for it in order to cover the cost. The Council trusts that each Member will look upon it as his duty to take a copy. The Photographic Album has been enriched by several additions during the past year. Messrs. F. Clarke, Dennis, Brooks (Rotherham), Young (Rotherham), Moore, H. Wood, H. S. Fremlin, and Major Ficklin having kindly given their photographs. There are now about three dozen portraits of past and present Members, including those of many well-known entomologists, and the Council earnestly begs that the gaps may be filled ere long. The Council looks forward hopefully to the coming year as one in which the work of the Society may be still further extended, and the promises of papers and exhibits from both Members and well-known naturalists warrant them in thus anticipating a very successful year. 0° BF © 0 8g ‘pos ¢ 6 4 SoF or 11 © 8 or € 6 O1 02 O).. fhe O85] 9 L19 € g 0 6 6 9 O11 o o1 Zz Oo oO1z 0 Oo GZ ees F 0 0 BF OL7Sisel a puep ut souejeg Ag | 0 S19 ‘aanqipuagx nyo. Ree Be ‘INONODDV ASNAdSNS eine [ezeu22) Wwo1j sao voueIjUq “ vag “ -puepY ul sourjeg oy *§1G149a4 6 «L. SoF BD pueyY ur soureg “ SuUIJIO Ply eeVs1ey sesuedxq “ puny uoreorqnd 03 330A “ On Ie & puny Areaqry 03 930A “ Oo SI z 24 9/e asuaedsng 0} patiieo sea voursjuq @ Sa o O10 (OT) S401} 921109) Pur Ateiqry jo sour ansyy a g 11 6€ eo Dun Sap ue OES 8e180d “ OF 2s g suuug ‘ OnOm One “+ (rea 1) souepusiy “ g zz Bi BS "* (aeak 1) quay Ag | € GS gi tes ‘gAngipuagxy 7 aes Sees ‘GNONAH TVAANAD Suljoo] platy ajesiay sydieoay “ "' DaATaoe1 suotidiosqns jo SIeory “ " g/t ye OF ‘soayq So S| 4 g6gI jo o/e uo as ae g/z “ Z ( “ “ -/§ “oT “ “ “ -/9 “ Y « (6 (¢ g/f 12 2g ‘paatsoa1 suoijdiiosqng “ “* puePy ur souryeg of "9419230g ‘4691 MVHA HHL XOX LAAHS AINVIVEA ‘kIOOS ANORSIH THMDEHN CNY THODOTONORNA NOGNOT HiDOS AH “S40JLpnP ‘AUANODLNONW ‘WW ‘Vv ‘ADCINASNVW WM '26g1 ‘y4gSe duwnuvs, 491109 puno} pue ‘slayonoA pue syoog yyw peredwioo 'pauiwexy £6 gift | © 6 giF lo Sr ' Kes 18 penyea "SI coF ‘suoijdiiosqng jo sieariy “ © -CIO- ‘puny uoljeorqng a se | ¢ OI eee wee eee eee puny Are1qry “e a £ 6 gI 600 500 G50 Hao eiere puey ul oourleg ( | oO 8 eee vee pee "qunos0y asuedsng 6 ( TIN ‘Ja ‘sjunOooYy Surpurysyng “uay Aq | | Oat Teo pes ay? oe puny [eiauer ‘vourleg OF et Seay *S91J1]1QDLT | ie Sef ‘SJassW ‘SHILVIIGVIT SLHSSV 9 gt SS¥ Omotesay Ons O TIO mee ae we aay os « SSUIPS9001g , Jo aes |‘ 8 S LAM wee oon eee eve eee suortzeuog ‘ © - ti @ °° ws Be af en PUSH ur aouryeg ‘ 6 o1 07 °° eh SS “* puny [elauex wo; saj0,Q “ 9 , cs see see sec see ee . ‘Sunuug ea I S Z tee vee vee eee see puey ul aourleg oL oa) ‘aAngipuagrx ay 7 Se 'sqGlaIay ‘aGNNa Otte ie a I VI oF it VAR ay? S oI aoe oan i ~__ puegi\ ur soured © é x & © : she “sasuodx gq s,uelreiqry ‘ i le sO “sour Areiqry Toc oSpa|nouy pue , Kajoog key 0} ee OG “* puny [elouer woij sajo AQ“ 9 81 oO : aS ff syoog suipuig Aq | 6 b O ' sie pop sas “+ pueypy ul sourleg OF Oe Saag ‘aAnqIpUuagxy 5 ee Sa ‘ *sqGlaIay ‘GNNA AUXVAAITI Corrections and Additions. Part I. Page 44, line 11, for ‘‘negative” read ‘‘ vegetative.” 5 AQ; 45 33a tor “idandbook ” read ** Manualty. »» 55) 95 21, for “ Antrocharini” read ‘‘ Anthocharint.” On same page remove /ontia daplidice from the Pierini to the Anthocharini before Luchloé. On Page 59 remove the Chrysophanini to preceding page following the Zephyrini. Subsequent studies, neglected when writing this paper, show that vein IV, fuses with the Radius in the Coppers, and that they share this character with the Theclinz, and are more specialised than the typical Blues in consequence. Page 59, line 30, for ‘‘ Angiades” read “ Augtades.” ;, 62, 4, 16, for “white “read “Whites” (z.’¢) Pierids:): a LD Jrtte pare fe. ste af4e7 pp. Cg, Notes and Observations on a Holiday in the Black Forest of Scotland. By Henry TuNALEy, F.E.S. Read February 25th, 1897. Tue Black Forest of Scotland, comprising the forests of Rothie- murchus and Glenmore, lies in a vast amphitheatre having the mountains of Braeriach and Cairngorm on the south-east, Craigel- lachie Rock on the west, Callart on the north, and Ord Bain on the south. The latter, as its name the ‘“‘White Hill” implies, is of limestone formation, and differs both in structure and appearance from the wild and rugged Cairngorms whose granite summits rise more than 4000 feet above the sea level. It is a land of, dark pine forest, covering thousands of acres with its sombre mantle, the fringes of which gradually fade and disappear on the sterner slopes of the surrounding heights. A land of moor and glen, river and loch, not to be surpassed in wildness and beauty in any part of Scotland. And, alas! from a collector’s point of view, a land of mist and rain, of wind and storm, and treacherous bog. At least such was my experience during my holiday last summer. Day after day one hoped for the fine weather, which came not except in fitful gleams. Each morning one anxiously sought of one’s host a forecast of the weather, only to receive the reply long ago crystal- lised into a Scotch proverb, “‘ Indeed, and it will be just a blink and a drink, whatefer.” The lower and more western part of this amphitheatre is traversed by the Spey, which here races through a sylvan valley of birch and alder. Higher up are the Luinack and Bennie Rivers, at the junc- tion of which stands Coylum Bridge, a smali hamlet of three or four dwelling-houses and a shop,—the latter a kind of emporium, the only one for miles, at which may be purchased anything under the sun—except the very article one may happen to want. It was at Coylum Bridge that I first met Mr. J. F. X. King, by whom I was introduced to this—to me—new district, and in whose society I collected till he left at the end of August. The chief of my work lay in the highest part of the plateau,— tooo feet above sea level, overlooking the forest, and opposite the gloomy gorge of the Lanig-Ghru, a pass leading over the hills to Braemar. It is a good mile from Coylum Bridge, and three from Aviemore. The district, consisting of a couple of farms, is called Achnahatnick, a word derived from “ ailen,” the Gaelic for juniper, and signifies the ‘Place of the Juniper.” And a very appropriate name it is if the English tongue could trip it a little more glibly, for the juniper grows thickly hereabouts except in the denser parts of 1 2 the forest. Many of the defunct junipers are represented by straggling bare stems, more or less bleached, grey or silvery white. Some are thickly covered with lichens of various shades. Broken and detached stems strew the ground, and intermingle their tints with the variously coloured mosses and grasses in which they are em- bedded, giving a great variety of surface pattern, of which I shall have more to say presently, My first day, the 29th July, opened bright and promising, and selecting a low part between the grassy slopes on the outskirts of the forest I simultaneously made my first acquaintance with living Zvedza @ethiops and a Scotch bog, the former to my keen delight, the latter to my discomfort and disgust. For seeing the object of my desire leisurely skimming the long grass a few yards i in front of me, I made a sudden rush, and just at “the cricical moment, when hand and eye combine in making the unerring swoop, I found myself floundering up to the knees in black and slimy ooze, while @¢hzops jauntily flitted on unconcerned. It is no part of this paper to detail the language which escaped me at that moment, so it is not here recorded. Suffice it to say that when I emerged and surveyed my nether extremities I made a vow, which I kept to the end of my holiday, a much longer period than I can remember keeping any other vow so rashly made, and that was never to wear gaiters again while collecting in Scotland. Allow me one moment to digress for the benefit of those who may venture into the same locality. Leggings are a mis- take in a wet country, unless the work les among brambles and thickets, and are required as a protection. They soon become soaked in the long dewy grass, they take a long time to dry, and are a con- stant source of danger to health. course that they are used—are knickerbockers and a good supply of woollen stockings, changing the latter frequently. On this plan I worked day after day through the wettest holiday I ever spent, and yet never felt the slightest symptom of cold. But apart from this my mishap was turned to my entomological advantage, for I discovered that if I wanted @th7ofs I must keep close to the margins of the bogs and more or less hidden water- courses which intersected the lower parts of the valleys and open glades. True, in bright Fee weather the males wandered up the higher and drier slopes, ‘but the females were mostly taken in the former situation. Although Mr. King had taken this insect freely in the same locality two days previously, owing to sudden change in the weather my total capture on this occasion amounted to only five males. For this was my invariable experience, however plentiful on the wing in sunny weather, no sooner was the sun obscured than every specimen suddenly dis- appeared, and no amount of kicking or beating would induce them to rise. There is no doubt that they descend deeply into the long grass, which towards the roots, in these boggy localities, is of a dark oo reddish brown, very similar in colour to the under sides of the wings. 3 I have known even a passing cloud to cause them to disappear from a patch covered with grass only, where a moment before scores were sporting themselves in "the sun. The 31st of July brought us a fine morning, and @¢hzops in abun- dance, but still all males. These could be taken in the “blinks ” between the “drinks” until the 6th of August, when the females began to appear; that is, about a fortnight after the first appearance of the males. Cold rain and wind now followed in varying amount until the r1th, which was a grandday. Females were now plentiful, and I hada good opportunity of observing some of their curious habits. If the w eather was continuously bright. they would fly freely, but more leisurely than the males, and generally lower down in the damper parts, and on the margins of the watercourses. If chased, and especially when struck at and missed, they would suddenly drop and take refuge in the grass, but unlike the males, which sometimes did this and clung to a stem or other support, they fell on their sides with closed wings and folded legs. So completely did the secondaries cover the primaries, and so closely did their coloration simulate the varied ground pattern mentioned in the earlier part of this paper, that although under one’s eyes they would have frequently escaped detection, had it not been for another curious habit of jerking themselves from side to side by suddenly opening and closing the wings. This would be done each time the herbage was disturbed, the creature throwing itself sometimes several inches to evade capture, always falling on one side or the other, but never assuming an upright position ‘unless by accidentally falling between the blades of grass, and never clasping a stem with the legs. I would on this point call attention to the varied under sides of the females of this species exhibited to-night. It will readily be seen that they belong to one or other of two aberrant forms described in Mr. Tutt’s “British Butterflies,” p. 431: the one, /eucotenia, with more or less silvery grey fascize ; and the other, ochracea, w ith distinctly ochreous bands. This latter was much the commoner of the two, but both were difficult to see when lying on their sides among the ochreous green of the grass and sphagnum, much of which was reticulated with the partly embedded lichen-covered and silvery grey stems of the dead juniper. Again, the females were very fond of basking with extended wings in the sun. In such cases the brighter fulvous colouring of the upper surface of the wings rendered them very conspicuous, and I have seen a male in full career suddenly drop, apparently at right angles, on finding itself over one of these females,—ample evidence, I think, of the value of this brighter coloration as a sexual recog- nition mark. Sometimes, if the weather were fitful, I have seen the females, with closed wings, resting on a blade of grass, and when disturbed they: at once fell on one side, and went through similar evolu- 4 tions to those above described. I never saw a male attempt this manceuvre. After the 21st of August the insect was /assé in the lower glades, although it was taken on the higher slopes until the 8th of September. Indeed, one could have divided the locality into a series of ascending zones corresponding with the appearance of successive broods, which extended over a period of six weeks. As regards the variation in the number and character of the ocellated spots, the specimens before you are fairly representative, and speak for themselves. They range from three to six on the upper surface of each fore-wing. I am inclined to think that the occurrence of the latter number is much rarer than is commonly supposed. Only a few days ago I heard of a professional collector offering 15s. for a specimen with six ocellated spots on each fore-wing, and no doubt he expected to make a profit on his outlay. Out of some hundreds examined I only found one that showed this number, and that on one fore-wing only. Almost as great a rarity 1s one with five spots on each hind wing, and of this I captured two specimens. Several females showed a tendency towards the aberrational form Havescens, while of the males only one specimen approached ab. odso/e/a. Canonympha typhon was over before I reached Aviemore, and I only succeeded in taking two specimens. C. pamphilus was rare. Those I took were paler and duller than our southern form. Of Chrysophanus phleas only one specimen—worn. The black dots were larger than any I have taken in the south. These are all the butterflies I saw. Sugar was a complete failure, although I persevered night after night—wet or fine,—varying the seductive compounds, the localities, and aspects. The nights were generally cold and windy. The total captures by this means were two Xylophasta polvodon, both of them suffused and indistinctly marked, and one Amphipyra tragopogonts. These three specimens are the net produce of six weeks of persistent work. By searching and beating in the daytime were added to these Noctua castanea, Polia chi—a very light female, from which I obtained ova, and Charwas graminis, a single specimen of each. Celwna haworthit was plentiful, but by the time I had discovered the locality (September 8th) the species was going over. ‘The males were flying in the sunshine over the heather, and Myrica gale in open boggy ground. Their flight resembles that of a bee, especially when circling round before alighting ona flower. About 4 o’clock in the afternoon several pairs were taken in cop. ; this was the only way in which I could take the females. At dusk Zupznostola fu/va was on the wing about the end of August, flying near beds of rushes and grass in boggy localities. Although I have growled over the inclement weather, I own that in a few instances my captures were augmented thereby. Here is a notable instance. For three days at the beginning of September we 5 had a real Scotch mist. Every pine needle, every blade and culm of grass hung with fine dew-like drops ; water was trickling down the tree trunks, so that the old and porous posts, supporting the numerous wire fences, afforded practically the only dry resting-place. In such situations I took, among others, Woctua dahlit, NV. elarcosa, LE punda nigra, and Calocampa solidaginis. The last has a very peculiar habit of resting. The head is very closely appressed to the resting surface, rough or smooth; and, apparently to enable the insect to do this more effectually, the hind legs are drawn up something after the manner of a grasshopper, and are used to thrust the posterior extremity away from the resting surface at an angle of 30° or 35°. The wings are corrugated towards the hind margin, and thus taper outwards. aie dorsal contour is slightly concave, caused by the gradual wrinkling, and therefore crowding of wing material towards the hind margin, so that on a decorticated pine post, grey and weather-worn, it may be mistaken by a casual observer for a deflec- tion of a splinter of the post itself. I was more than once deceived even after I had observed the resemblance. The similarity in colour, too, was most remarkable. I have heard it stated that the insect thrusts its head into the holes or depressions on the trunks of trees. There is, I think, no doubt this is so, for on two occasions I found it in such a position. In the cases to which I allude the surfaces were quite smooth ; and what I venture to contend is that, however first induced and acquired, whether by thrusting the head into depressions for the purpose of concealment, protection, or comfort, the habit is as firmly fixed, irrespective of the nature of the resting surface, as is that of a dog who turns himself round and round to arrange an imaginary bed of rushes or grass before lying down on perfectly bare ground. Among the Geometre I was more fortunate as regards numbers, although genera were few. One of the most interesting, because new to me, was Lmmelesta minorata, almost the most local insect I met with in the Highlands. It was confined toa very limited area, but an exceedingly pleasant one to work in after the @¢hiopfs ground. An open country of billowy greensward crested with feathery birch, either singly or in clusters. ‘A few huge blocks of limestone, grey and lichen-stained, scattered around ; here and there a solitary giant fir, old and erizzled—the sole remnants of the famous Rothiemurchus firs left standing as specimens when the forest was denuded. Below, a panoramic view of the lovely Spey valley fading away to the north- east ; while to the south, towering sentry-like above all, was the placid and solitary Ord Bain. Such was the habitat of this delicate little insect, to which Mr. King introduced me one afternoon at the end of July. We found it sporting in the hollows and in the slopes, looking, in the sunshine, like little flakes of silver. The specimens netted were either going over, or the folds of my rather coarse net were too much for an insect so fragile. However, much to my chagrin, the weather changed as usual, the sun was overcast, a fine drizzle 6 descended, and every specimen disappeared as if by magic, and no amount of sweeping would induce them to rise. Seeking shelter from the increasing rain under one of the great firs, I soon discovered what had become of the little beastie, for the lee side of the trunk was literally swarming with them. So here, again, the anathematised weather enabled one to carefully select and make one of the best bags of the holiday. 1 found them also on the limestone and on the birch trunks. Sometimes they were very difficult to detect, and my royal friend initiated me into the mysteries of “blowing,” at which he was an adept. By compressing the lips and giving short vigorous puffs, directed on to apparently bare trunks, a flutter or turned-up margin of a wing would locate an insect one had hitherto been looking at and yet not seen. On the 6th August we again visited the same locality, and found very few ménorata on the tree-trunks. Walking over the patches of eye bright, I kicked up a large number of what proved to be chiefly females, and plucking several stems of the plant I found ova on all of them. The eggs were laid singly near the end of the spike, where the leaves and buds grow closely together. By parting these with the fingers the eggs were seen on the upper surfaces and near the edges of the leaves. I took up several more spikes which females had just left, and found the eggs were oval, white, and under a pocket lens ribbed longitudinally. The following day they had changed to orange. All the books I had with me gave the pabulum of the larvee of this species as unknown. But there was no doubt whatever that the ova of this insect were deposited on the plant mentioned. Itwill give you some idea of the lavish occurrence when I say I was unable to pluck a single plant that did not contain ova. I called Mr. King’s attention to this, and the fact was confirmed ; for after a while he said he had found a flower spike without ova, but on further examination together we discovered a solitary egg. The plants gathered were placed ina glass of water and kept in my room; but on returning from a few days’ visit to Inverness my kind hostess had thrown them away, thinking they were only flowers ; so unfortunately I obtained no larve. Later on we made a further visit to the locality, but this time found only the transparent egg-shells, and yet no signs of larvee. My captures are divided into two groups, as you may observe. The first with complete dark bands and suffused with greenish grey ; the second lighter, discoidal, and with that part of the dark band sur- rounding the discoidal spot either pale grey or white, leaving the spot very conspicuous. ‘This form was the more numerous of the two ; it was also more ochreous in colour. Among some hundreds exa- mined I only found three or four with the dark band broken trans versely. On the evening of August 23rd, among the alders on Spey side I captured Melanthia bicolorata and var. plumbata. ‘The type is larger than those I have taken in Kent, and the smoky-blue border is both darker and broader. Var. plumbata is intermediate between those of 7 Forres and Rannoch, being lighter than the former, darker than the latter. During the first three weeks in August the forest swarmed with Larentia didymata. The males are much darker than those I have taken in Devonshire, and the females much lighter ; on dark surfaces they look almost white. However, their very conspicuousness becomes a species of protective resemblance, for I have frequently mistaken the small light spots of lichen on the fences and tree trunks for a female at rest, “and vice versa. L. cesiata was taken freely by Mr. King in July; it was going over when J arrived, and so I obtained few specimens, and none of the dark banded forms which my friend had. JZ. ofivata, a single worn specimen, was noted at Loch-an-Eilien. Cidaria populata was plentiful in the open parts of the wood among Vacctntum. 1 did not work for this so early as I might have done, and I only took one of the dark variety. ‘The type appears to me darker and more suffused with smoky brown than my southern cap- tures. The males were on the wing from about 6 till 8; the females being taken later on the heather bloom, with wings closed over the back, the paler under-sides being conspicuous by lantern light. They were mostly in cop. about 9.30. C. fudvata,a single female specimen was seen. C. gmmanaza, along and varied series was obtained, but not without laborious work, chiefly beating the fir and birch trunks with a heavy stick. The first appearance was August 7th, and then onwards until September roth. C. /es¢a¢a was first taken August 11th, and then continuously on the lower parts of the moors, being kicked up as one walked along, especially in the small glens or hollows in which were birch or sallow. No females were taken until the end of the month, and only then by searching with a lantern. They were in good condition, mostly in cop. with worn males ; I never saw one flying. All the males were of smoky purple, with a dash of ochreous chiefly along the coast. Of Carsia paludata (tmbutata) I took only two, although had I visited the locality of this species earlier in August I should have obtained more. When one is working a new district, in which there are species whose habitats are restricted and widely separated, it becomes impossible on a first visit to work all, especially when handicapped by continued climatic disturbances. I took all the species in the genus Zhera. ZT. variata was almost passé ; the few I obtained, however, were typical. They are lighter and more ferruginous than those I have taken in Surrey. Z. simuéata, Mr. King took the first brood in June. The second appeared on the t1th August, and, although not abundant, was met with continuously until I left. 7° fvmata was first noted on 25th of August, an odd specimen or so turning up occasionally until September 8th, when we had just one whole day of glorious weather, and the full brood appeared. It was rather laborious work under a blazing sun, as many of them had to be dislodged from the higher branches of the firs by throwing stones, sticks, or other handy missiles. Many of course were found sitting on the fir trunks, and were very skittish, 8 flying off when approached. When chased and hard pressed they would suddenly drop; and although one could see the very spot on which they appeared to alight, I seldom found them till I had observed their trick. They fell with closed wings till within an inch or so of the resting surface, and then opening the wings took a sudden turn to one side and rested about ten or fourteen inches from the place they seemed to strike. Many took to the upper regions ten or fifteen feet overhead, and were soon out of sight. ‘They were most abundant among the scattered firs on the outskirts of the forest ; very few were taken inside. The larvee of 7: juntperata were obtained by beating the juniper in the open spaces, and it could have been taken in thousands, full fed, from the 21st of August until about the 7th or 8th of September. The pupee were lightly attached to the leaves of the juniper by a few silken threads, and fell into the beating tray with the larve. The first imagines emerged on the 24th of September, the bulk on the 4th, and the last on the roth of October. I have placed a typical series by the side of some Surrey specimens taken last year by Mr. Auld. The former are smaller, darker, and more smoky in colour than the latter, and the central fascia of the fore-wings is less constant. It is frequently broken transversely, and in many instances terminates in a very dark rectangular spot on the inner margin ; in a few cases the inner half of the band is entirely obliterated. If ants be excepted, the most abundant and ubiquitous insect was Eupithecia sobrinata. A single specimen was taken August 3rd. On the 8th it appeared freely, and by the 15th it was swarming, and continued to be plentiful until I left. It is difficult to convey any idea of the lavish profusion of this species. At Loch-an-Eilein it could be beaten out of the firs in hundreds. At one sweep of my net I took fifteen ; but of course I did not attempt to box them, for it was impossible to overhaul them for forms. Besides, I had a much better chance when the wet mist came, to which I have already alluded. Soérinata was then common on all the fence-posts, and on one occasion the palm of my hand would have covered five of them. In this kind of weather they were somewhat sluggish, and gave me a chance to examine carefully before boxing. Moreover, at this date, September rst, they were mostly females, among which the grey form preponderated. ‘The specimens appear to fall broadly into three parallel lines. First, the brown form of various shades and depths of colour, within conspicuous transverse markings ; second, the grey form, with an almost white band, and well-pronounced grey and black mark- ings on the nervures, passing through various shades to a unicolorous grey ; and third, a group intermediate between the two, having the brown of the one intermingled with the white, grey, and black of the other. The ninth specimen in each group exhibited deserves special attention. Each of the three has a distinct black Y mark on the upper wings; the apex is on the discoidal cell, and diverges towards the hind margin. It is very rare in the brown group, and 9 not common in either of the other two, although many are asym- metrical in this respect. The larve of £. helveticata were beaten out of the juniper along with those of juniperata ; but so close was the resemblance between the two that I did not discover the fact till I reached home. Larvee of Bupalus piniaria were common. When dislodged they hung from the tree by a silken thread, but never fell to the ground. I think they must both rest and feed ready attached, for they were never taken by surprise, however suddenly the blow was given. Of micros I can give but a poor account. I was unsuccessful in obtaining many species that I know occur in the locality. I took only twenty-four species. Of the Pterophori, 1 ; Crambi, 1 ; Yortrices, 15; liner, 7. Pedisca ophthalmicana and Tachyptilia populella were very abundant wherever the poplar was found, and I obtained some very nice forms. Lphippiphora similana was most local, being confined to a few square feet of scrub birch at a high elevation. By climbing to the locality day after day for a week, in all weather, I succeeded in getting two dozen, never more than three or four at a time. The total number of species taken was fifty-six, including Rhopa- locera, 4; Noctuz, 14; Geometre, 14; Pterophori, 1; Crambi, 1 ; Tortrices, 15; and Tine, 7. To those who go to Aviemore for collecting purposes I would recommend from ist of June to end of July as being the cream of the season. 10 A Discussion on the ‘‘ Protection of Insects in Danger of Extermination.” Opened by C. G. Barrett, F.E.S. March 11th, 1897. Mr. Barrett, in introducing the subject, said that great indignation had been excited among entomologists in many parts of this country by the rapacity exhibited by a number of collectors who had in the past year assembled in the newly discovered locality in North Corn- wall for Polyommatus (Lycena) arion, where, according to reports received, 500 to 700 specimens had been taken by single collectors, and it was computed that between 2000 and 3000 specimens of this local species had been destroyed. Some remarks upon the subject by Mr. R. McLachlan, F.R.S., made before the Entomological Society of London, had introduced the question of the probable early extermination of this and other exceptionally local species, and in the hope of finding a remedy that Society had appointed a representative committee for the purpose of obtaining evidence and recommending such measures as should be deemed desirable with a view to the protection of threatened species. He had been requested to act as secretary, and the first work had been to obtain information and suggestions from kindred societies and individual entomologists. In so doing they had received ex- pressions of strong sympathy with their object, and evidence of extreme indignation at the proceedings of the more rapacious col- lectors, and at the same time hearty promises of assistance. The committee, after several meetings and very careful considera- tion of the evidence and suggestions received, had come fully to the conclusion that any attempt to act through the legislature would be futile, and their unanimous opinion was that the only effectual method of influencing collectors was by means of a strong and healthy public opinion and personal influence. ‘To this end their efforts were directed, and in this respect they desired to secure the co-operation of this Society. The President, Mr. R. Adkin, said that he considered the matter was a most important one, and he hoped that the members would freely express their views upon the subject. Mr. Auld called attention to the absolutely unnecessary and wanton habit of some collectors to take every specimen, whether worn or not, which they came across, with the result that the worn ones were killed, only to be thrown away. He remarked how much better it was from an educational point of view that species should be bred from the ova, as collectors then acquired a knowledge of the life- history of species, and became truly students of nature. Mr. Carpenter thought that it was not always the collector who rH was to blame, but that very often local circumstances brought about the destruction of a local species, and he instanced Meditea athalia, which in its old locality of Abbot’s Wood had suffered greatly in the larval stage from the depredations of the pheasants, now more extensively preserved in that neighbourhood. Mr. T. W. Hall suggested, as an extreme measure, that a black list of greedy collectors be formed, and even published in the magazines. Mr. Tutt said that, as a member of the committee, he wished rather to hear opinions from other members than to give his own. He, as a collector in close touch with many other collectors, had no doubt that much over-collecting existed, especially of local species that had a moderately high money or exchange value. He instanced again the practical extermination of Afatura tris, Melitea athalta, Nola albulalis, and Melanargia galatea in Chattenden Woods. The way in which Scoria dealbata was systematically collected was quite deplorable. Last year as many as seven or eight men were often on the ground at one time in quest of this species, some of the collectors having obtained specimens for many previous years. He stated that he remembered an occasion when seven or eight men stood in a line and fought for each specimen of 4. 777s as it came up; he had once heard threats of personal violence used to a lad who had taken up what was supposed to be one of the best positions for the capture of this species. The systematic way in which a London dealer set about the extermination of /Vola albulalis in order to raise its price was detailed, and the over-collecting of Acdalia rusticata at Higham was also mentioned. He said that he thought schoolboys did no great harm. They wanted two or three of a kind, and were satisfied. It was the man who wanted three, four, five dozen, or, rather, as many as he could get of such species as Zhecla w-album, T. prunt, Leuco- phasia sinapis, Lycena arton, and so on, that did the mischief. He disagreed with those who thought moral suasion was useless. It was, of course, useless with those men who would collect for collecting’s sake, and looked on each specimen as having a money value; but there were thoughtless men who did these things from want of consideration, and these were certainly amenable to reason. The man who got four dozen or six dozen Lycena arion last year, and added something to his collection which he will tell you he could not have got unless he had had the Z. avion, will go again. You cannot influence him. He is, of course, making a collection in which Z. avion has a market price, as well as all the other insects it brings in exchange. The same with the men who go to Abbot’s Wood for d@elitea athalia, and those who year after year so closely worked a well-known haunt of J/. aurinza, that they finally exterminated it. He had much sympathy with collectors, for he recognised that he himself was essentially a collector, but he wished collectors would collect with their head as well as with their hands. Mr. Barrett recognised the difficulty of influencing those collectors 12 who were not members of one or other of the various societies ; but he thought that they too might be reached, especially 1f when found over- collecting they were tabooed the exchange columns of our magazines. He also said that a suggestion had been made that a list of the particular species in danger of extermination should be freely cir- culated. Mr. Fremlin would go further than collectors or even dealers, and lay the chief share of the extermination upon greedy acquirers of insects who would give extreme prices for good specimens of rarities. Mr. Tutt did not class all dealers together, for there were men among them who would be the very last to exterminate a species ; it was to their interest to preserve, and not to destroy. He further remarked that the struggle for existence of a species was often much intensified by the attack of ichneumons when the species was over- collected ; for the same number of the parasites devoted their attention to the constantly decreasing number of larvee with a very certain result. Mr. Mansbridge said that he would like to see some limit put to the reckless exchange of modern times. Year after year he had known the York collectors go after the same insects at the same time. ° As an instance he mentioned Zpzone parallelaria (vespertaria). He had known one man take for exchange as many as 200 of this species in a day, and the same individual would go every day for a fortnight. It was the same with other species. There were but few dealers, but a vast amount of exchanging took place. In closing the debate Mr. Adkin said that it seemed to be the decided view of the members present that some sort of protection was desirable. In his opinion the best way of effecting this object would be by raising a strong public opinion, and by the use of all possible moral suasion. He thought that the Society could aid the com- mittee by forwarding a resolution supporting their action. Mr. T. W. Hall then proposed, and Mr. Auld seconded, the following motion, which was agreed to : “That the thanks of the South London Entomological and Natural History Society be given to the Committee of the Entomological Society of London for the Protection of Insects in Danger of Exterm1- nation ; that the Society strongly approve of the work ; and that the members present pledge themselves to use their personal efforts to further the objects of the committee.” HENRY J. TURNER. 13 Representative Species. By Prof. A. RADCLIFFE GRoTE, A.M. ead by J. W. TuTTt, F.E.S., on March 25th, 1897. Tue Noctuid fauna of North America is composed of (1) a palearctic element showing affinities with the European fauna of to-day ; (2) an original North American element ; and (3) a tropical American element intrusive from the south. The latter makes itself felt to a considerable extent, owing to the fact that there is a con- tinuous land connection with the tropics through Mexico ; while the proximity of the West India Islands to the Gulf Coast, the prevalence of winds from south to north during the summer, the presence of the Gulf Stream, and the circumstance that the extremity of Florida on the one hand, and a portion of ‘Texas on the other, belong in reality to the American tropical region, facilitate its spreading over the North American continent. To the phenomena offered by this tropical element of the North American Noctuid fauna I have devoted much attention, particularly in relation to Aleta argillacea, the so-called cotton-worm, which I have shown to have been originally introduced from tropical America, and which still con- tinues yearly to invade our territory. This element, of whose constituent species I have given partial lists, need not detain us here. As compared with Europe the tropical element is much more important in North America, owing to the absence of a dividing sea like the Mediterranean, and to the unbroken extension of the land masses to the south. The purely North American element consists of the peculiar genera. Their sorting out is to some extent a matter of opinion. The theory with regard to this element is that it originated on North American territory, and is the survival of pre- glacial ancestors. The first and largest element, however, is the paleearctic, which, allied throughout structurally to the European Noctuids, affords a greater number of species readily to be dis- tinguished from their congeners in the Old World. It is assumed with regard to this element that it is descended from a common pre-glacial circumpolar or northern fauna which flourished, with local modifications, but more or less uninterruptedly, over the Northern Hemisphere before the setting in of the first ‘ice age.” The change in climate drove the species then inhabiting North American territory slowly to the south, the cold climate still lingering in the north, interposing a permanent barrier on both sides to a further mingling of blood. Henceforward the American Noctuids belonging to the former circumpolar fauna were left to themselves, and the changes 14 that they have undergone have to be registered by the naturalist of to-day. For more than a quarter of a century I have been studying more or less continuously our American WVoctutde, and have been engaged in resolving by comparison the palzearctic element into groups, and showing the existing affinities with the same element in the European fauna.* From the mass of species which the student readily recognises as distinct arise a small number, the specific distinctness of which from the European is more or less difficult to establish, and a still smaller number of which we can positively state that they offer no distinction whatever. The smaller number offering few and varying differential characters are what we call “ representative species,” and it is of these that I here chiefly write, referring to a paper upon them read before the German Association at its meeting in Bremen in 1890. No comparison between American and European species is com- plete unless all the stages—egg, larva, and moth—are included in the comparison, and hitherto few have been so compared. I have only done this in one instance. I could find no difference in any stage between Luplexia lucipara bred in eastern North America and inGermany. I give here a corrected list of the identical species now existing in America and Europe. The fact that some Lepidoptera have been imported by commerce, such as Porthetria dispar, Zeusera pyrina, and perhaps Sesta tipuliformis, together with the white cabbage butterfly (the history of the introduction of which has been narrated by Mr. S. H. Scudder), as also the introduction of certain species of Coleoptera and Diptera, does not seem to apply to the case of our identical owlet moths. There is no record of such introduction. ‘The habits of the species, the fact that Luplexia lucipara is disseminated over the whole country from New York to San Francisco, that Scodoptervx Libatrix is found from Hudson’s Bay to Virginia seem to preclude the theory of introduction. Again, another fact slides in, and this is the most important fact for the student to remember. ‘The identical species grade insensibly by small shades of difference into the class of ‘‘ representative” species, just as these latter do into the great mass of species readily separable by the usual specific characters. ‘The theory of unchanged survival since the glacial epoch in the case of these identical species is, therefore, supported by the evidence. Beyond a few Alpine forms of Anarta, the identical species so far more or less fully compared, but with present certainty to be assumed, are—Agvots prasina, Fabr. ; Agrotis speciosa, Hibn.; Agrotis ypstlon, Rott.; Agrotts occulta, L. ; Agrotis saucta, Hubn.; We octua baia, Fabr. ; N octua c-nigrum, 1. ; Noctua fennica, T.; Noctua plecta, L.; Enargia paleacea, Esp. ; Scoltopteryx libatrix, L.; Heliothis armiger, Hubn.; Aelothis scutosus, Fabr.; Mamestra trifolit, Rott.; Xvlophasta lateritia, Hfn. ; Flillia crasts, H.S.; Dipterygia scabriuscula, lL. ; Luplexia lucipara, * See my paper, “On Allied Species of Noctuidz inhabiting ae and North America,” Bull. Buff. Soc. Nat. Sci., October, 1874. 15 L. ; Gortyna nictitans, L.; Leucania pallens, L.; Pyrophila tragopo- gonts, 1; Pachnobia carnea, Vhunb.; Xauthia flavago, Fabr. ; Syx- grapha hohenwartht, Hohn. ; Svugrapha devergens, Hubn. ; Pyrrhia umbra, Hfn. We next come toa number of species for which separate names are used in American and European literature, but which may probably fall together. Of the identity of several, perhaps indeed of most, I have a strong conviction; but, since I have had no opportunity of thoroughly examining a series of any two species, I have kept them usually separate in lists. For convenience of reference I arrange the names in double columns opposite each other. EUROPE. NortTH AMERICA. Mamestra dissimilis, VL. Mamestra atlantica, Grt. Teniocampa incerta, Hfn. Tenocampa alia, Gn. Lithophane lambda, Fabr. Lithophane thaxteri, Gxt. Lithophane ingrica, H.-S. Lithophane pexata, Grt. Calocampa vetusta, Hubn. Calocampa nupera, Lint. Lithomia solidaginis, Hubn. Lithomia germana, Morr. Flelotropha leucostigma, Hubn. Flelotropha rentformis, Grt. FPlusia nt, Hubn. Plusta brassice, Riley. Calpe capucina, Esp. Calpe canadensis, Beth. The foregoing list is incomplete, and the species compared seem to differ in varying degrees. No variety of /améda equals thaxteri with accuracy, and as the forms are now geographically separate, and breed true to type, the conditions of specific rank appear to be fulfilled. On the other hand, I feel tolerably sure that the species of Lithomia, Flelotropha, Calpe, and Plusta above compared will prove to be identical. Certain North American species of Caradrina should be added to the above, as they seem to have very close European allies. We now come to the true “ representative ” species, which differ in one or all stages, but which have, in varying degree, the unmistakable facies of a common parentage in the past. EUROPE. NorTH AMERICA. Flabrosyne derasa, I. flabrosyne scripta, Gosse. Diphthera orton, Esp. Diphthera fallax, H.-S. Triana pst, L. Triana occidentalis, G. and R. JSocheera alni, L. JSocheera funeralts, G. and R. Noctua augur, W. Noctua haruspica, Grt. Noctua triangulum, Hufn. Noctua normaniana, Grt. Agrotis obelisca, Hbn. Agrotis obeliscoides, Gn. Mamestra tincta, Brahm. Mamestra purpurissata, Grt. Dianthectia magnolit, Bdv. Diantheca ectypa, Morr. Fladena basilinea, Fabr. fladena finitima, Gn. 16 EUROPE. NorTH AMERICA. flyppa rectilinea, Esp. Flyppa xylinotdes, Gn. Achatia atriplicis, L. Achatia delicata, Grt. Fleliophila lithargyria, Esp. Fleliophila pseudargyria, Gn. Pyrophila pyramidea, \.. Pyrophila pyramidoides, Gn. Cucullia umbratica, L. Cucullia intermedia, Spey. Plusia festuce, L. Plusia putnamt, Grt. Fleliothis dipsaceus, L. Flehiothis phlogophagus, G.and R. Catocala fraxint, L. Catocala relicta, Walk. Catocala pacta, L. Catocala concumbens, Walk. p) This list of ‘“ representative” species might be extended. The resemblances are of different degrees of intensity. ‘The two species, NV. augur and WV. haruspica seem chiefly to differ in the structure of the ¢ genitalia. The variability of the ¢ genitalia within the limits of a single species is not ascertained. If, as has been asserted of Bombus, the peculiar construction of the genitalia (hereof the ? ) is such as to present effective copulation between otherwise allied species, the value of the genital structures as a whole has hitherto been underrated by entomologists. On the other hand, as a syste- matist, I should object to according generic value to modifications of the genitalia as a decisive character, for the reason that otherwise closely related owlet moths are found to have very different types of genitalia, while practically the formulation of the different types seems exceedingly difficult. ‘The genitalic character is now being used with apparent success to separate species which run so closely as to make their distinction on other grounds practically im- possible. The theoretically “representative” species must evidently be the changed descendants of a common ancestor, now widely separated in space, distributed over different geographical regions whither they were brought by natural forces, change of climate inducing migration, cataclysms effecting sudden separation. In the present case we may often have to do with merely parallel species which have ceased to perpetuate themselves in North America or Europe. Deeper studies and comparisons of minute variations in structure may lead to important generalisations, and to additions to the general theory which is here presented in outline merely, and which simply accounts or tries to account for the existence of identical and ‘representative ” species of owlet moths in Europe and North America. Carried into other groups, the same general phenomena present themselves. In the Platypierygide our few species of ‘hook-tips” are all of the type of the European Platyptervx falcataria, L. The hamutla type, typical of the generic term, is not represented with us. We have one species allied to Prionia lacertinaria. Cilix is wanting in the North American fauna, while we have two species of the Northern Asiatic genus Orveta (Dryopterts), all telling of former relations which have WA been actually suspended since the time of the great winter of the years The present distribution of certain representative species, de- scendants of a pre-glacial circumpolar fauna, is a matter of interest. In 1876, my friend Mr. Jas. Behrens sent me the type and a MS. description of his Saturnia mendocino for examination, and I determined the moth as absolutely congeneric with the European species of Saturnia (see “Can. Ent.,” vol. viii, p. 175). I expect this determination to hold. It is one fact in corroboration of my observations that the West Coast fauna contains structural types like the European, which have not spread east of the Rocky Mountains. So the Californian and North-west ocellated Smerinthoid form resembles the European 5S. oce//atws more strongly than our Eastern species. The occurrence of Sombycia, Parasemia, and typical Arctia further illustrate this point. On the other hand, the C7¢hero- nitde, a New World family, absent in the West India Islands, do not occur in California, nor, so far as I am aware, on the west coast of South America. They are found from Canada to Uruguay, east of the mountainous backbone of the continent. They constitute a peculiarly American element in our fauna, and have apparently spread from the tropical region northward and southward. The particulars of their distribution in Mexico are not well known. The American species of He/zotizs need a more careful study than has yet been made of them. I believe it to be tolerably certain that FT, scutosus and the American 7. nuchalis are identical species. Also that 7. dipsaceus and 1. phlogophagus are different and ‘ represen- tative” species. But how about avmzger? I have not yet seen in any European collection the equivalent of the pale olive-grey or ochreous form I have described as wbrosus, and which is figured by Glover. The European examples are dirty ochreous and smaller. But are all the American specimens examples of the var. wmbrosus ? From recollection I believe I have seen in America examples approaching the European form. I think from this we must see that it is important to name varieties. Mr. J. B. Smith draws in all varieties which intergrade with the type ; but it seems to me that it is characteristic of varieties that they intergrade. A non-intergrading form would be dimorphic or specific. ‘This method of making mere synonyms of varietal names is a virtual covering up of facts which nomenclature is intended to lay bare. It can only be practised by those persons who believe species to be in nature the insoluble entities they conceive them to be—distinct pieces of a puzzle only fitted in their categories. When they will not fit, such persons are tempted to “ destroy ” them. Taking the list of identical and representative species given by Mr. Tutt in the “ Stray Notes on the Noctuz,” pp. x1l.—xvi., as the standard, the only changes in names there given, necessitated by recent comparisons, are as follows :—(1) « Agrotis confilua,”—the American examples cited by me under this name belong to A. rudzfera, 2 18 Grt., a “ representative ” species of the European JV. rwéz. I had no European examples with which to compare, and called the American specimens in 1874 ‘‘conjlua,” according to Mr. Smith’s determination of my examples in the British Museum. On the other hand, /e7- conflua, Grt., is the true American representative of confiwa, which latter is not found in America. My name /erconflwa, however, must go down before Mr. Walker’s jucunda. (2) “ Agrotis chardinyt,”— the reference of my gz/wipennis to chardinyt was made by Morrison. I had not compared the two, and Mr. J. B. Smith restores my name after examining material in the British Museum. When two Lepi- dopterists fall out, in America at least, they refer each other’s species as synonyms upon the slightest provocation. (3) Mr. J. B. Smith, in 1882, under the name of Heliothis dipsaceous (and this peculiar: spelling is repeated in the Cad¢alogue), identified my phlogophagus, as identical with the European species; he afterwards, however, made them representative species. . (4) Zieniocampa tncerta.—The American specimens are considered to belong to a different species, viz. T. alia, Guen., by Mr. J. B. Smith ; consequently this is a case of a “representative,” and not of an “identical” species. I had followed Fitch in considering it identical, not having compared it myself. Other than these the determinations in Mr. Tutt’s pamphlet remain uncontradicted by more recent observations. When species ‘‘ agree exactly” they are ‘identical ;” when they “ differ constantly,” or their “normal condition” is to offer a slight change in colour, or marking, or structure, they are “ representative ” when inhabiting distinct geographical areas. The fact that these ‘‘ representative ” species, if not occurring on separate continents and inhabiting distinct areas, would be held as “parallel” species, shows that the characters by which they differ are of the kind we are accustomed to in closely allied species. They differ as do Phalera bucephala and P. bucephaloides, or Coremia Jerrugata and C. unidentaria, &c., in the nearest cases. But in America they shade off very gradually into the class of perfectly distinct species, the resemblance becomes always more vague and general ; so that we see that we have not to do with a sharply defined class of species, contrasting with the rest of the American Noctuids as a whole. As it is not always easy to separate the identical from the representative species, so also it is often difficult to say whether a species is representative or simply parallel. ‘The common origin of the North American and European fauna is at once evidenced by this fact. But in the “representative” species the resemblance is often so close, that we must seek some explanation. Why have some species (not introduced by commerce), such as Scoliopteryx lbatrix, remained unaltered, and others changed a very little? Why, out of all our many Apatelas or Catocalas, are there no identical, but several “representative” species? Now here is my theory: that these “representative ” species were once identical species, and lived on common ground before the Ice Age. If we accept this as a ) iL) probable theory, together with my characterisation of the differences, then the same causes have evidently in time produced “ representa- tive” species as have operated to produce parallel species. But with the first class we can better measure the result, we can more surely prove a change to have taken place at all, if we can say 7: sz and T. occidentalis were one species before the glacial epoch. So that here, too, we should have a proof that species have originated through variation produced by the total surroundings. The identical species have resisted change ; they have “survived” under fresh conditions. Flehiothis phlogophagus may be cited as a typical “ representative ” species (of AZ. dipsaceus), because it produces also a ‘ representative ” variety. This tendency to produce a variety with yellow secondaries (both the black markings and the yellow ground are very vivid in /utettinctus) 1s an indirect proof of the relationship in my opinion, although yellow is a common colour in the hind wings in this group. This paper is, I think, a fair summary of the results yet obtained, and I hope exhibits the “present state of our ignorance,” as Mr. Tutt so happily expresses it, in an impartial manner. 20 Some Considerations of Natural Genera, and Incidental References to the Nature of Species. By J. W. Tort, EES mkead, Apne sia So7- IN spite of the infinite variety of the organic world, the perfection of each separate part and the harmonious ‘completeness of the whole attract all who are searching for truth. It may be taken for granted, I think, that we who are collected here to-night have been bitten, as - it were, with the desire to pierce the truths which nature hides from the ignorant and yet unfolds to every earnest worker. Each addi- tional fact added to the sum total of our knowledge forges one more link in the chain, gives us a truer insight into the completeness of the whole, and clears up a dark corner hitherto not understood. We have got beyond that stage when it was necessary to prove that there is a general harmony in organic creation, in spite of the dissimilarity of the individual creatures everywhere met with. We know that it is possible to recognise an unity of type among creatures apparently differently formed, and certainly very widely apart as regards their habits and functions. The progressive development of animal life is known to all but the absolutely unlearned and ignorant. ‘The observation of the first rudimentary structures and instincts in the lower animals, of the gradual processes by means of which they are developed until they reach their higher phases, their maximum of excellence in the highest organic types, are brought to our knowledge in our pupilage as naturalists, and the tracing of the details relating thereto, the investigation of the structural advance- ment we observe, the explanation of such new facts as we may discover, are the work of the naturalist. When such facts and explanations as relate to structure are given, the naturalist must set forth the methods of classification suggested ‘thereby to his mind, the method propounded being, of course, one which will accord with the various constitutional changes which have been observed by him, and which will characterise the relationships that he has been able to discover. Every system of classification, then, must be based upon the facts observed, and must adapt itself to all the various phenomena giving rise to these facts, and on these considerations alone should any scheme be exclusively deduced. To attempt to do this without a previous training is absurd, and yet we find men who build up schemes first and then attempt to fit facts to the schemes ; men who select an individual species which they miscall a type, and afterwards search the fauna through to find the species most closely agreeing with it. Bacon writes, “It cannot be that axioms, established by 21 means of reasoning only, should be of any value for the discovery of new results, because the subtlety of nature far exceeds the subtlety of the reasoning power; but axioms duly and orderly abstracted: from particulars, in their turn easily point out and mark off new particulars, and so render the sciences active.” It is necessary to keep this well in mind, lest, trusting to theory only, and neglecting the facts which alone can be derived from a wide, comprehensive, and direct observation, we pervert the latter (facts), by trying to make them fit into our preconceived notions of what ought to be, and entirely overlook what is. It is very necessary to point out these general ideas before entering upon the detailed consideration of the arrangement of the creatures we study, z.e. their orderly and natural classification, for from our infancy we are indirectly suckled on erroneous notions of the facts relating to organic existence, so that when we commence our work independently, we have, often unwittingly, very strong preconceived notions of what ought to be, and which have to be rooted out completely before we can bring our mind to the proper consideration of the facts, and deduce our conclusions solely from the facts before us. Among the various names adopted for the definition of the different subsidiary zoological assemblages, none is more likely to be misunderstood than that of the “genus.” Our most conservative naturalists have at any rate a general idea and perception of what is meant in an abstract sense by the term “species ;” but the nature of a genus 1s often entirely misunderstood, more especially by those men who give their attention particularly to synonymy and nomen- clature. But until this has been really grasped, the claims for the annihilation or retention of genera will be based on no sound principle, and will, on the other hand, add to the general confusion, and prevent the advance towards the model and ideal system we desire. Probably the most difficult erroneous notion to uproot is that in which the ‘‘genus” and ‘ species,” through having been so long associated with the same things in our minds, are regarded as of equal importance, and hence both are often looked upon as of equal (or even of the same) value, and the true idea of the “genus ” is then altogether lost, being, as it were, blended entirely with the specific. This curious result is followed out to its logical conclusion by those who would, on specific characters alone, give two names to every species, or by those who, on a specific character, are ready to sepa- rate a species from its natural associates, and find a new generic title for it. Such do not comprehend that genera represent certain natural groupings of units (species), which units, although differing in certain particulars z7¢er se (which, indeed, makes them recognisable as units), yet possess characters that unite them into a more or less homogeneous whole, z.e. the genus. The application of this general principle can be further applied to tribes, sub-families, and families ; 22 for the principle is the same, the differences being merely relative, not absolute. We have already assumed that certain relationships do exist among organic beings, that certain species are more nearly united by blood than others, and that therefore groupings of these naturally allied individuals are possible. By collecting all the most nearly allied species together we obtain various genera; by collecting the most nearly allied genera we get tribes, and so on. The closely allied individuals which form a genus will, as it were, congregate around a certain individual, which will possess more features in common with the others than any other one of them will, and could we detect this individual, we should have the natural type of the genus; but we know that various physical phenomena—floods, rising and sinking of the land, volcanic action, &c.—have, in the course of ages, rendered many species extinct, and we are also aware that our own knowledge, even of existing species, is so fragmentary, that the search for the typical individual of each natural group, 2. e. the centre from which the group has sprung, is a difficult one, and, in many cases, practically hopeless at the present time. Such a type would be, as it were, placed in the centre of a sphere; whilst the species included in the same genus with it would represent complete, incomplete, aborted, or branched radii, striking out in all or any direc- tion towards the surface of the sphere. It will be seen, then, that the “genus” and the ‘‘species” differ in significance. ‘The genus is indicative of the relationships held by a group of various closely allied individuals to other similar groups in the organic world, and depends upon the various structural pecu- liarities which the individuals comprising it possess in common, whilst the ‘‘species” indicates the actual creature itself; in other words, the one applies to several individuals or races with distinct peculiarities, though bound together by broad structural charac- teristics, the other applies to a single individual race alone. One may be met by the query—already in reality answered in the earlier part of the paper—why, if the specific name indicates the species, do we want a generic name at all, for the former indicates the animal itself? and this was the position of those who, more than half a century ago, brought forward the ‘*‘ Mononomique Méthode” of nomenclature. Such reasoning may be at once met by pointing out that not only do we want a name (specific) to designate the individual itself, but also another name (generic) to show its relationship to the creatures immediately allied to it, and yet others (tribal, sub-family, and family) to indicate its relationship to those more distantly allied. The misconceptions of the generic theory which end in the belief that genera are either (1) purely imaginary, or (2) have a definite and isolated existence, are undoubtedly responsible for the assumption that a mononomic system is possible, and the latter idea applied to species has also led to gross error, although, because 23 species usually appear to be somewhat more definite (possibly from having been more studied) than genera, even when their abstract position is considered, the error has been less glaring. Let us look at this for a moment. It was at one time thought that a species was a specially created entity, a thing complete in itself, and capable of absolute definition as such. Our studies have swept away the notion, for, however true it may be that the study of our insular fauna with all its missing links enables us to congratulate ourselves on the ease with which we can, as a rule, discriminate the individuals which we are pleased to constitute as species, yet our own fauna gives us some difficulty even in this direction. | Who can separate absolutely some specimens of Agrotis tritici and A. cursoria ; of Cidaria russata and C. tmmanata? yet, because they can, in the mass, be separated with less difficulty than the parallel Zeshrosia bistortata (crepuscularia) and 7: crepuscularia (biundularia), some entomologists will maintain the distinctness of the former, and burke the difficulties presented by the differentiation of the latter by uniting them as one species, a method to be deplored as a sign of ideal weakness. The truth, indeed, is patent. ‘There is no sharp line of demarcation between any of the pairs of species just referred to. Species are not always the entities that we are apt to consider them ; they are not always capable of absolute separation nor of exact definition. Yet species vary in degree. In the above ex- amples they are doubtless in process of development, and since they exist largely under the influence of a similar environment, are unable to detach themselves absolutely. Of the specific value of the Larentia olivata of our hedgerows and woodsides we have no doubt, nor have we in Piedmont of the Alpine Zavenéia apfata. In Britain, Z. ofvaza is a species ; in the Swiss Alps Z. aféaza is also a species ; but in the Tyrol, where Z. o/vafa and L. aptata occupy the same ground, they produce every possible intermediate form ; and we learn that these two specialised forms have even recently (as such times go) had a common origin—nay, that what are to us normally two distinct species are in other parts of the world but one. It is true, then, that between the most closely allied species there is really no sharp line of distinction, and that the greater the number of intermediate links that have become extinct, the more isolated and distinct the species become. Who can separate all the Alpine Meliteeas, the Skippers, the Erebias? Only those who have the most complete knowledge of them, who have seen them in hundreds in their native haunts, know that the forms, distinct enough as species in one valley, may exist as varieties, or even aberrations, in the next; yet our museum men, who have seen a few dried bodies, will separate them absolutely and give ex cathedra views upon them. It is the old, old saying again of which one is reminded when one reads these absolute views—‘“ Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Of an earnest worker one can safely say that at five-and-twenty he will know everything ; at five-and- 24 thirty he thinks he may be occasionally wrong; at five-and-forty he knows he is occasionally wrong; at fifty-five he has learned his ignorance, and gives his opinions to the world in fear and trembling. Of course, there are butterfly-catchers whose age reaches the know- ledge of ignorance standard, but whose sagacity includes them with those aged five-and-twenty. This is an excursus, and I apologise. I would only impress on my hearers that species are not quite entities; that they are not absolutely defined by exact limits, but yet that they are sufficiently definable as a rule, that, with a little latitude, a name may be applied to them which will convey to the initiated a more or less clear con- ception of what the user means thereby. But if species are not absolute entities, what is to be said of genera 2 At the outset it must be conceded that although genera are not imaginary creations, yet they are by no means clearly defined, abruptly separated from each other, nor well marked, except by accident, but merge into each other by slow and easy gradations. That genera do merge slowly into each other is no excuse for uniting them into one genus, and hence the necessity for defining a genus by characters obtained from all the stages of existence of its species, for it is only by doing this that the true position of what we may term intermediate species can be obtained. ‘To take a single character, or even characters, common to adjacent groups, so that the various species may be enumerated with equal plausibility under two con- secutive groups, and then infer that the groups cannot be upheld, and forthwith proceed to annihilate the genera by blending them into one so-called genus, isa plan much to be deprecated, and 1s, in reality, an attempt to fall back, to a certain degree, upon the view that species alone are to be recognised i in the organic world. In the early days of zoological science it was to be expected that general and obvious characters would be the first to be taken and used. Hence the massive genera of the older entomologists, to whom all butterflies were Papilio, all Lepidoptera with pectinated antennze were Bombyx, all Plumes were A/uci/a, and so on. It took almost a century of slow progress before our entomological ancestors— Stephens, Doubleday, Westwood, and others——w eal out the details of the minor characters separating closely allied groups, which gave us a more or less natural system of characters by which we could recognise and separate allied groups. For the last fifty years, how- ever, our advanced lepidopterists have been engaged (1) in the working out of life-histories, and (2) more recently in discovering the phylogenetic characters presented by the creatures they study ; and during this time no capable scientist has thought fit to generalise on the material thus collected, and so give us an adv anced and natural scheme of detailed classification ; nor have our book-makers, who have compiled books from which collectors could name their captures, attempted to set forth the alliances of the various insects described, according to the latest discoveries. Not only has this 3) ig 25 been so, but such authors have actually attempted to depreciate the work that has been done, on the plea that the retention of names is of greater value scientifically than the truths the names represent. I read recently, “Classification is largely a matter of opinion... . It is only possible to take group after group in as natural a succession as seems to commend itself to the individual writer, with the knowledge on his part that the arrangement is partly the outcome of his own particular views, and that, in all probability, those of other authors are equally substantial.” This is worthy of study, as it represents, with slight modifications, the characteristic apology of those whose field work is at a maximum, whose knowledge of previous original work is practically 72/7, and whose powers of generalisation, based on work other than their own, is at a minimum. Such a man represents the antithesis of the individual against whom Mr. Vernon Wollaston inveighs, and whom he describes as “attempting the establishment of propositions and principles from simple dialectics, without a previous training in the practical bearing of the subject;” for these men are not wanting for facts, except such as can only be learned from close and prolonged study, but they are deficient in the logical conception which is required to correlate these facts according to their various values. Classification may be “largely a matter of opinion” to such men. ‘To naturalists it is something very different. To return to the consideration of the “genus.” Let us attempt to understand what the term really includes. We have seen how various species branch off in different directions from a common stem, and how such branches at last may take on special characters, and become more or less indefinitely separated, and form what we call species. Let A represent such a centre, and give off as branches a B, AC, AD, AE, AF, and let the distance that they are from each other represent the amount of separate development that each has under- gone. The nearer B, C, D, E, and F are to A, the greater will be the resemblance between the species; but as they get farther from the centre there will be considerable difference between them. ‘They will all vary zz¢/er se ; some on each line, perhaps, resemble more or less those on others, but they will be a natural group of individuals and constitute a genus. Let us now assume that c and E in their turn develop new branches and characters, whilst F, Db, and B remain moderately fixed and un- changed. Then the subsidiary branches, a, 4, ¢ d, e, will form a genus, f, g g, 4, 7, another genus ; whilst the original group, B, CG; DE, F, with its subsidiary branches, becomes a tribe. Now there can be no doubt that we often include under the same generic title species which have been developed far away from each other; sometimes, indeed, species of which we have not as yet a clue to their develop- ment, and, until the real relationships of: our species have been worked out, the term ‘‘ genus” must be more or less a useful conven- tion, always in a state of flux, liable to change with every new discovery, and as far removed from the ideal “genus” as can very 26 well be imagined. Here, then, we must face this important fact, that until our knowledge is complete we cannot definitely fix our genera. Fixed genera, therefore, represent ideally a finality of know- ledge ; and as there is no such thing, it is logical to assume that a fixity of genera, and hence of generic terms, is utterly impossible. Such an apparent result would simply represent a hiatus in scientific progress, and hence something to be dreaded and deplored. In spite of this apparent instability, which indeed is only due to our ignorance, order and symmetry are the laws of nature. If it were possible to resurrect all extinct species, we should be able to construct a system perfect in its symmetry and in its detail, complete in its entirety, the position of every individual such that it would slide by imperceptible gradations into the parent from which it | originated. That harsh lines of demarcation are not always readily discernible between the several groups does not do away with the fact that the groups exist ; to assume that the allied divisions are perfectly separate and disconnected is to deny the first principles and axioms of evolution, and to break the chain on which the organic unity, as demonstrated by evolution, depends; whilst to assert that groups cease to be groups when they merge into each other would be to give away the scientific position altogether, and tend to suggest that the differences between two groups which merge on their outer limits are no longer worthy of investigation. ‘These close relation- ships, this merging of the most closely allied organic beings, one into another, must occur. It is the sole basis of evolution ; it exists not only between the larger and smaller groups of objects, but even between the individual objects themselves. It is the law that these changes should be slow and gradual, and the harsh lines of demarca- tion that exist are the exceptions, and it surely is not correct or logical to be guided by the exceptions instead of by the rule. Our groupings into families, sub-families, tribes, genera, and species are only an attempt to learn the arrangement which Nature has adopted, and to discover the lines along which her forces have moved. What we wish to find out are the natural genera or groups of organic beings, and in attempting to discover these we have to be careful to let all facts have their full value in determining what are really natural lines of relationship, and which only imaginary. From what has been said it will be gathered that genera are more or less natural groups of species collected about central nuclei, from which the various species have been evolved in the course of ages, the nucleus being as it were the central type. Since, however, any one of these species may, under favourable conditions, itself become a nucleus, and give rise to freshly divergent species, and form, as it were, a new genus, it is clear that the parent genus and offspring genus must merge into each other. It might be convenient occa- sionally to look upon such a secondary evolutionary group as contained in the first, and consider the whole a genus when the two parts merge insensibly into each other. 27 If we had all the forms of life that have ever existed before us, it might be urged that the differences in every direction were so gradual that the species might all be considered as belonging to one genus ; nay, we may go further, and suggest that we should probably have to admit that all life, all individuals, were of one species. But even granting this, the close resemblances between the individuals comprising the various groups, and also the differences between the individuals of one group and those of all other groups, would still exist, and in spite of the fact that none of these groups would be suddenly or abruptly terminated on their limits, yet the groups— generic, tribal, sub-family, and family—themselves would exist. I need not labour the point further, that all our studies prove to us that more or less homogeneous groups of species exist, and that this being so, the recognition of genera is necessary. ‘This being conceded, it is clear that as soon as the abstract idea of what con- stitutes a new genus is formed, the genus must be defined by a name. This name will then convey to the mind two fixed ideas, viz. (1) the assemblage of species included therein ; (2) its own relationship to allied groups. The groups that have been formed at various times and from different causes sometimes agree very exactly with what we con- sider to be convenient ; hence we speak of ‘a well-defined genus,” meaning thereby one in which the species, which should have inter- graded with other genera, have from some cause or other become extinct. On the other hand, the gaps are sometimes so well filled, 7.e. in reality have never been formed, that a large group may show no positions at which we can divide it into genera without separating somewhat closely allied species, and yet the extreme species are much wider apart than the distance that ordinarily satisfies us for different genera. Groups of this kind, in which a large number of species which merge into each other, but which have at their extremes species with different characters, thereby showing the independent development each has undergone, should be carefully studied in order that the subsidiary evolutionary centres may be discovered, and the group thus divided into its natural sub-genera, for it is very incon- venient to have large unwieldy genera in faunistic work. Here, then, are the two lines on which all our generic work should be based :—(1) The attempt to separate species into natural groups. (2) The subdivision, if possible, of a natural group containing a large number of species into two or more subsidiary but still natural and evolutionary groups for convenience. It must not be forgotten that the natural types of these subsidiary groups are usually quite as far removed from each other as are those of more clearly defined genera around which the extinction of intergrades has taken place. We can illustrate these two points with the Acronyctas, about the subsidiary groups of which there has recently been so much dis- cussion, We had better, perhaps, do so in Dr. Chapman’s own words. He writes: “I tell you that the British Acronyctas split 28 into several natural divisions with differences of about the value that are often taken for genera, and if you are to subdivide the Acronyctas into genera, then those divisions which I have called respectively Viminia, Cuspidia, and Bisulcia are the three primary divisions.” That surely is clear enough as to the biological values of Dr. Chapman’s subdivisions. As to the convenience, Dr. Chapman further writes: “‘Secondarily, if your genus Cusfdia is so large that it would be convenient to subdivide it, characters are easily found to do so. This could not be done so definitely in Vzmenza, which is very homogeneous.” It will be observed here that the subdivisions are based on characters, not on “ opinion.” But in practice our systematists have grouped their species, quite as much as a matter of convenience, as a matter of indicating re- lationships. Although, from the biological point of view, this idea of genera appears to us an exceedingly absurd one, except so far as grouping for convenience has resulted in the subdivision of an unwieldy genus into its natural sub-genera ; yet, as uz fait accompli, it has to be reckoned with, and in considering it we may grant that the groupings of species dy name are matters of convenience, and that the name soon carries with it, or expresses, the idea of the relationships existing among the groups themselves. Dr. Chapman says, with regard to these genera of convenience, “ You may, as you find con- venient, make the whole of the Acronyctids into a genus, 7. e. Acronycta may be your genus. My three main divisions may be your genera; or you may further subdivide Cwsfzdia—all according to convenience, not because the differences are greater or less (zz “tz, December 22nd, 1895). This states fairly the position of ‘genera of convenience,” although it seems to me to be rather more at the expense of what we may term “natural genera,” or natural groupings, than I should be inclined to allow. For if Cuspidia and Viminia are, as the Doctor states, “two primary divisions,” with differences of about the value that are often taken for genera, I would maintain that these are absolutely the genera ; that their union is unnatural so far as it gives us a tribal division with a generic appellation, and that their further subdivision must be trenching on specific characters. As a point of criticism of the Doctor’s statement, however, I would suggest that it appears to me that the subdivisions set up in Cusf7d7a are almost as important biologically, and present as important differences as the differences existing between Vmrnéa and these various subdivisions. That being so, and since each of the British species included in the various subdivisions of Cusf7dia, itself forms one of a very natural group of species distributed over the palaearctic and nearctic regions, I am inclined to look upon these subdivisions in the light of natural and well-defined genera. It will be seen from my remarks that I agree largely with Wollaston, who writes: “ With respect to their immediate associates, genera cannot be isolated and distinct, but must of necessity merge 29 on their own limits. Hence, if such be the case, as I contend that it usually is (the exception to the rule being the result of accident, and by no means a part of the original design), it may perhaps be a problem how far we are justified in rejecting many large and natural assemblages, through the fact that they blend both at their com- mencement and termination imperceptibly with others, their precise boundaries being dimly defined.” It would appear that we are not justified in rejecting any “ natural assemblage,” but the distinctions between the extremes of two adjacent assemblages should be defined as precisely as possible. One other point presents itself to me, viz. that groups which appear to be abruptly and distinctly isolated when our knowledge is imper- fect, or based on the fauna of a very small area, are very frequently found to be closely united with others when our knowledge becomes more complete, and when intermediate forms from other districts are discovered, so that their separation and isolation are in such cases directly the result of ignorance rather than an actual fact. The question of convenience appears to me at best an unsatis- factory one. Personally I am inclined to reject it altogether ; but when convenience is urged by naturalists, it should, it appears to me, always be with the proviso that it breaks no natural law. To illustrate this point we may turn to the British Vanessids. Scudder has long since pointed out that all our British species are practically representatives of distinct evolutionary groups, and has characterised them in the egg, larval, pupal, and imaginal stages as distinct genera. It is further well known that if the Vanessids of the world be considered, our British species will fall into various genera belonging to the tribe Vanesstd?. For example, our comma butterfly (cadbum) is a member of the great American genus Polygonta, consisting of a large number of closely allied species, all with the distinct characters of our single British species. Our British cavduz and azalanta fall into the genus Pyrameis, of which there are many species both in Asia and America. The large tortoiseshell falls into an entirely different genus—/ugonéa—from that of the small tortoiseshell butterfly—Ag/azs, both of which have Asiatic and American representatives. Yet a recent author, writing on these from a purely British outlook, says, “The genus Vanessa is now broken up into several sub-genera for the purpose of classifying the numerous exotic species, but for the few that we possess this subdivision seems unnecessary.” Surely this was written in pure ignorance of the facts. From 1816 onwards the Vanessids have been properly considered as a tribe, containing in_ itself many well-defined genera, and the advanced writers of every decade have recognised the fact. The first part of the quotation, too, is incorrect, for Hubner never considered the subdivisions as anything lower than of generic value, and Scudder distinctly diagnoses them as such, and at present I must confess that I am not aware of what this writer means by a sub-genus. 30 Biologically, I take ita sub-genus is a genus in process of evolution from a parent stock, but our British Vanessids represent well-defined diagnosed generic divisions to which the term “sub-genus” is most distinctly inapplicable. It appears to me that if, when the Vanessids of the world are considered, certain genera or evolutionary groups are discovered with certain specialised characters in each group, and if it be further found that our various British species belong to several of these different evolutionary and _ structurally distinct groups, it is certainly right and proper to refer each of our species to its own generic group. It is reducing science to absurdity to say that the generic characters which it is necessary to recognise for the purpose of “classifying the numerous exotic species,” become simply specific characters when we come to consider the British fauna, because we possess so few species. It matters not at all if we have only one species in Britain belong- ing to a certain evolutionary group, that species must be put into the genus, and be known by the generic name which that evolutionary group bears in the faunas of the world. Genera are not mere matters of convenience, as such authors as we have quoted seem to imagine, nor should they be made up of just as many heterogeneous or homogeneous species as the mind can readily remember. There is no need to go into a detailed explanation of the various factors which have resulted in the formation of what we call well- defined genera. We have already hinted as to how the extinction of intermediate forms may be brought about. We have already pointed out what we consider is the line to be adopted when genera merge insensibly in various ways into each other. It cannot, however, be too strongly insisted upon that if genera are to be rejected simply because they are not abruptly terminated and distinctly isolated, we shall only have genera remaining which have become isolated through purely accidental causes; and to build up generic differences on groupings which are fer se exceptional, and not normal, is certainly not the way to develop a genealogical tree which shall show natural relationships, but is rather an attempt to point out the isolated groups which are conspicuous because of the absence of close relationship with each other or with any other group. I think I have pointed out, in a crude and incomplete manner, I am afraid, what I consider should be the basis of natural genera. That it differs absolutely from the genera that we are repeatedly treated to by systematists is perfectly obvious. In genera, as in species, we may detect a certain amount of permanence and insta- bility combined, even in the most ideal and theoretical aspects, the permanence predominating in the “species,” the instability in the ‘“oenus.” There is, as it were, a general permanence combined with the instability of the component parts— “ Still changing, yet unchanged; still doomed to feel Endless mutation in perpetual rest.” 31 Some British Spider Crabs. By Epwarp Step, F.L.S. Read April 22nd, 1897. THe Spider Crabs inhabiting British seas number a round dozen, and they are characterised bya general resemblance to the Avachnide. The ambulatory limbs are more or less cylindrical in shape, the joints of pretty equal thickness throughout, and in some species drawn out to a length that suggests the ‘‘ harvestman ” among spiders. Their bodies, too, are much longer than broad, and somewhat triangular in general outline. Another item shared in common by all these Spider Crabs is the tendency to develop innumerable spines and hooks upon the carapace and other portions of their upper surface, and to turn these appendages to the best account. Although they possess so much in common which distinguishes them from other crabs, these marine “‘ spiders ” differ so much among themselves that systematists have arranged them into seven genera belonging to three separate families. Their correct relationship, as fixed by the authorities for the time being, is as follows : Family. Genus. Species. ( Macropodia. . . . vostratus (L.). | 8 Wr et se doneizostris)( Mallore): irae J Acheus . . . . . cranchit (Leach). ph) nachus "Se ee dorsertens7s (penn): | - SE dorynchus (beach): Ne SHE i06. unr hined ewan Corina aus (I berveln)y (Maia) 1 Te squinade (Elerbst)* | pe SN TS REIN otirech clei a We CiteHAgOIS (lbs) Manp& Bene) g) i eee nCOaTeLacu oa ecel): ees.) Ne em eenre/7aodo7. eerie). ey Bina coder tee, PARTHENOPIDAD es) i Lurynome "ss" aspera’ (Penn.). It is not my intention at present to deal with the whole of this list, for the very good reason that I have not an intimate acquaintance with them all. With two-thirds of the number I am sufficiently familiar, through the medium of living specimens from Gerrans Bay, to justify me 1n offering a few remarks. Most of the others are known to occur on the Cornish coast, and I am hoping to extend my knowledge to several of them during the coming summer. I have remarked that they make full use of the liberal array of hooks and spines with which Nature has endowed them, and they do so by attaching fragments of weed, zoophytes, sponges, ascidians, etc. If the females of our own race were similarly endowed with 32 hooks they could scarcely exhibit more intelligence and artistic taste than are shown by these Spider Crabs in disguising their natural beauty. This is the more remarkable because their eyes are so situated and mounted that a very limited portion of their decorated surfaces can be brought within the field of vision. However, some other sense probably comes in to assure them that a satisfactory arrangement of fal-de-rals has been effected ; for when a specimen decked out with red weeds is placed in a tank where only green weeds grow, the red is soon stripped off and replaced by green. Some species decorate both carapace and limbs, some the limbs only or chiefly ; but in no species with which I am acquainted is any attempt made to improve the natural condition of the under surface, except the broad abdomen of the females when it is distended by’ ova, but it has then ceased to be a part of the under surface, and needs disguising. ‘The specimens submitted for your inspection were not set up with a view to this paper, but have been more or less scraped and scrubbed to show the crustacean pure and simple ; one or two, however, have not been so carefully cleaned, and one is in full “ war paint.” Macropodia rostratus is by far the most common of the spider crabs of this district, and comes up in profusion, its long legs entangled in the meshes of every trammel-net that is shot. The terminal joint of the smaller limbs is slender, curved, and flattened, the lower edge with a dense fringe of short hairs, and is habitually folded up close against the next joint, so that, for holding tenaciously to the finer weeds among which it appears to get a living, these are as useful as the pincer-claws or che/e. So tightly do they hold by this means that it is difficult to dislodge a specimen from a net without causing it to drop several of its legs. This act is performed on the most voluntary principle, so that only a small percentage of those obtained are perfect. These slender legs are in this species sparingly clothed with stiff long hairs, but along the upper surface at regular intervals are other hairs, which are curved in such fashion that the tips as well as the roots are in contact with the crust. All over the crab’s back (carapace) are a large number of similar hooked hairs, and it is sufficient that the crab should take a small length of weed and draw it over its carapace to secure it there, the hooked hairs holding it in position. But these spider crabs are not content with covering the carapace, the smaller legs are often covered in I. vostratus ; also the rostrum (where the hooked hairs may be most easily seen), and even the antennee. It is singular that only quite recently most writers on the Crustacea agreed that all these foreign substances had naturally grown on the crabs just as they might have done upon a rock. Bell attributes their growth to the sluggish nature of the crabs, and in speaking of isa tetraodon, which he took in very large numbers at Bognor, he says, ‘‘ Like all the slow-moving Crustacea, they are very liable to be covered with small fuc’, so that they are sometimes completely 33 concealed by a mass of these marine plants growing upon their surface, where their roots find a firm hold amongst the villous coat of ‘the shell and limbs. ‘This is especially the case with the females, which in this as in many other species are less active than the males.” And in a foot-note he adds, “Say supposes that the fwci which are found covering certain Crustacea are merely entangled mechani- cally in the hooked hairs by which they are covered ; but there is no doubt they actually grow upon them, and are attached by roots. This is evident from the healthy state of the plants, as well as from the direction of their branches.” Such a statement is absolutely startling, coming from Bell, who professes to know the living crab, for it makes clear the fact that his descriptions were not made from the life, but from cabinet specimens ; also that he was ignorant of marine botany. Through- out his descriptions he never again mentions these hooked hairs, which are such an important feature of their natural outfit, although he does see and mention the clubbed hairs of Psa. No naturalist with Say’s theory before him could make a careful examination of the living crabs without coming to the conclusion that Say was right, and it is very clear that /wcz could not be attached by roots, for they have none. Nor does the direction of the branches support Bell’s contention as he declares, for it is the nature of marine plants as of terrestrial vegetation to grow up towards the light ; but these fragments on the crab’s surface take a more or less horizontal direction. But, in truth, a very cursory examination is sufficient to show any one that these weeds have no natural attachment to the crab, and that they are simply caught under the hooked hairs or glued to the straight ones. Nor do these slim-legged spider-crabs affect ud ; they prefer the more delicate Chlorophyceze and Rhodophycez. The only weeds I have found growing zaturally upon them are those of a low confervoid nature that grow rapidly over any sub- marine surface. Zaza sqguinado, however, does use Fuci. The specimens of animal life to be found upon AZacropodia rostratus are not numerous, but there is no room for doubt as to the reality of the vital attachment of these. One of the tubeworms (Serpula) is frequently conspicuous on the carapace, and some form of Zoantharian ; occasionally also a small saddle oyster (Axomia) ; otherwise there is little animal life to be found there. In order to bring out some of the details of structure more clearly, I have mounted on one card fragmentary portions of JZ. rostratus. From these disjointed parts will be gathered at a glance certain facts : —(a) the remarkable difference in the development of the abdomen in the two sexes, its greater breadth and convexity in the female being due to the fact that it has to serve as a pouch to protect a great mass of ova. And here I might mention the fact that the females of this species are sexually mature quite early in life, for they bear eggs when they have not reached one-fourth of their full size; (0) the rostrum is much longer in the male than in the female, and the che/e 3 34 or pincer-claws are in the male about three times larger than those of the female, and proportionately more robust ; (¢) note also the cells for the reception of the inner antennee just below the rostrum, and the singular bristle at the apex of the non-retractile eyes. Other points already referred to are illustrated on that same card. This species is exceedingly abundant in Gerrans Bay, and appears to be largely preyed upon by fishes. Mr. Hailstone, quoted by Bell, observes that of stated numbers taken at one haul off Hastings the proportion of males to females was as two to one. My own obser- vations would lead me to say four to one; yet I do not think this is any evidence of the proportionate numbers existing in the sea, but rather due to the fact that the males may be more inquisitive in exploring trammels and crab-pots than the naturally less active females. The other species, M/acropodia longirostris, does not appear to be at all plentiful in this district, though Couch and Spence Bate in their “Cornish Fauna” describe it as ‘‘ very common at the depth of two to twenty fathoms.” ‘The general aspect of the male /ongirostris is very similar to that of the female zostratus, if we ignore the prominent abdomen of the latter; it is necessary, therefore, to care- fully scrutinise specimens to avoid passing over /ongirostris as females of vostratus. ‘The points of specific difference are found in the greater length of the rostrum in the former, which exceeds the peduncle of the outer antennze ; the possession of a series of minute spines on the inner side of the longest joint of the chefe, and two small tubercles between the mouth and each outer antenna, instead of one as in vostratus. In addition, the body of /ongrostris is more elongated and the spines of the carapace sharper. Acheus cranchit 1 have not yet found here, and suspect it does not occur in Gerrans Bay. Couch and Spence Bate say, ‘Not common: deep water among weeds.” ‘The species was discovered near here by Mr. Cranch, after whom it is named, and who obtained a solitary female specimen whilst dredging off Falmouth. Milne- - Edwards says it lives among seaweeds and on oyster beds, and this may explain why I have not yet obtained it: the oyster beds are in the creeks of Falmouth Harbour. lnachus dorsettensis, the most common of the three British members of the genus, has not yet come in my way, though Couch and Spence Bate record it as common on this coast in crab-pots ; yet the less common doryuchus and the rare /eftochirus have fallen into my hands, and are now exhibited. The chief differences between them may be briefly stated, or at least sufficiently so for the purpose of distinguishing them. Just behind the eyes comes the gastric region, and in dorse¢fensis this is occupied by a transverse row of four small tubercles, and a large one a little behind them (*.*'). In dorynchus the same region is adorned by two small tubercles and a large one a little behind, the three arranged triangle fashion (-.°). In /eptochirus the disposition of the spines and tubercles is very 35 similar, but the cardiac region in dorynchus possesses a rounded elevation on which are three very small tubercles in a triangle with the base forward (*.*). In /eptochirus the cardiac region is occupied by three spines, but here the afex of the triangle is forward (.*.). In addition, /eptochirus is more substantially built, and grows to a much larger size. By a comparison of the specimens you will observe that in dorynchus the joints of the chele are swollen and rotund; in leptochirus they are more nearly cylindrical, and longer. The ‘‘ hand ” or terminal joint of the chelz in doryuchus is not equal to two-thirds of the length of the carapace, whilst in /effochirus it is slightly in excess of the entire length of the carapace. But there is another very important mark whereby the male /effochirus may be known at a glance. On the thorax beneath there is a raised tubercle of polished white, which is peculiar to /eptochirus, though a differently shaped tubercle of similar character marks the Mediterranean species, L. thoracicus. L. dorynchus in my experience delights to cover its upper surface entirely with a slimy yellowish sponge. Nature has only clothed the mountains and valleys of its carapace with a scrubby coating of minute bristles, and I presume it plants a cutting or two of the sponge in the valleys whence they spread until the whole surface is covered with a homogeneous layer. I have not seen this planting done, but the specimens I have obtained have all been coated evenly in this fashion, and have had to be scraped. ‘The covering is applied to the upper surface of the chelee as well as the carapace. ‘There is a great advantage in covering oneself in this fashion ; it is akin to the wisdom of the leaf-rolling larvae, which gain by one effort a disguise and a series of meals. About three weeks since an individual came into my possession, and I placed it in an aquarium where it had for companions an Lchinus miliaris and a fine Galathea strigosa in a beautiful scarlet coat diversified with lines of dazzling blue. The walls were well draped with green confervee, whilst dozyachus, lesser limbs were decked out with small fronds of deep crimson weeds, and before he had been there many hours he appeared to feel acutely that he was not in harmony with his environment. It is true there was a rough piece of serpentine in the centre of the vessel, in which crimson tints predominated, and he made the most of this by clinging tightly to it, head downwards ; but all the time he evidently realised that his yellowish sponge had closer affinity with the green tapestry. Anyway he commenced to strip off his crimson rags, and next morning he had not one on. Some he had eaten, the others were lying on the floor of the vessel. Then he followed the example of the “chznus, and tried to cover himself with patches of the green confervee, but evi- dently there was not sufficient body in it to serve his purpose, for he gave up that attempt. He clung to his sponge covering, however, or rather he allowed it to cling to him; but after he had been thus situated for a fortnight he began to feel hungry, and then the full beauty of his arrangement came out. Reaching across his carapace 36 with his pincers he brought away a handful of the sponge and _ pro- ceeded to eat it. At the time of writing he had supported himself for a week on the produce of his carapace, had cleaned off one of his big claws, and was busy with the other. Fragments are still left in the valleys of his back, and these are probably respected in the hope that they will again spread. Very few specimens of dorynchus have yet fallen to my lot ; chiefly, I believe, because my fisher friends do not readily distinguish them from the common JZacropodia rostratus, of which they consider I have already had enough. The specimen of Lrachus leptochirus exhibited is my type at present. At the moment of writing I have access to no recent notices of the species. Bell mentions only four or five specimens as having been: taken up to the appearance of his “ History,” but whether later naturalists have been more successful with it I cannot say. I note that Stebbing merely mentions that there is such a genus comprising six species, of which three (named) are British, but gives not even a generic description. At present I can add nothing to what is appa- rently the very scanty knowledge of /epfochirus, except that Gerrans Bay must henceforth be included among its localities. Maia sguinado 1 had occasion to bring under your notice nearly two years ago. I have living and dried specimens I could send you, but they are large and awkward, so I content myself with sending photographs of the upper and under sides. I shall not go over old ground again, but will briefly say it is the largest and most prickly of all our spider-crabs. The entire carapace is thickly covered with broad-based substantial spines, which reach their highest development around the antero-lateral margins and along the median line from front to back. Every one of these conical spines has the base sur- rounded by a circle of hooked bristles for the purpose of securing three- or four-inch lengths of HZadrys stliquosa and Zostera marina. The upper sides of the legs are thickly coated with these hooked bristles for a similar purpose, and wherever it is possible to find space unoccupied by these, stiff sharp bristles are planted that will enter the flesh of the naturalist as readily as do the hairs of Cacti. These straight bristles serve to hold all sorts of rubbish in the shape of mud, sand, débrzs of rotting Fucz, &c., in which the numerous tribes of worms, sand-stars, amphipods, anemones, sponges, polyzoa, mollusca, &c., may find congenital quarters. I could write you a paper upon the fauna of a JZaza’s carapace, and I think it would have to be quite as long as the present essay. On one occasion I detached seven specimens of the anemone Cy/sta viduwata from the back of the particular Zaza whose portrait is before you, and I have not yet found that species elsewhere in this neighbourhood, though I have been fairly successful in working out the anemones of the district. The photographs are from a male. ‘The female has proportionately shorter and more slender chelae, but the abdomen is so highly developed that it entirely covers the thorax—its lateral margins (it is oval in form) 37 slightly overlapping the basal joints of all the limbs, and the anterior portion overlaps the base of the maxille. In the male the under surface is smooth and polished like porcelain, but in the female it is covered with a dense pile of short, stiff hairs. A character sketch of this species from my pen appeared in the ‘ Leisure Hour” for July, 1896. Neither of the two species of “yas from these waters has yet come into my possession, and of the next genus I have obtained but one of the two—/%sa tribulus, which I exhibit. It had, unfortunately, met with an accident before it was caught, by which its rostrum was injured. The fisherman to whose sympathy with my weakness for what his tribe are pleased to call “‘curios” I am indebted for this specimen, was somewhat startled to see a mass of red sponge walking along where it had fallen from the crab-pot, and it was handed to me as a curious sponge, to see if I was sharp enough to detect its real nature. I “spirited” it at once, just as 1t was, without detaching the sponge, which, however, I have since touched up with colour to make up for that which the spirit dissolved out. Observe that all its limbs are short—that is, for a spider-crab. It keeps them well hidden away under its load of sponge (which has shrunk from its original dimensions), but it disguises them by attaching bits of weed, etc. Note how its esthetic sense has been gratified by placing small pieces of the white calcareous sponge, Lewcogypsta, on each leg. Is this to create the optical illusion of detaching the legs from the body ? We know how important a part white spots play in protective colour- ing, and it looks much as though the crab had a similar purpose in view here. Pressure of other engagements prevents me from proceeding further with this subject just now, but I trust you will forgive the brevity of this paper, and regard it merely as an introduction to the specimens exhibited. Few field naturalists appear to be working at our indigenous Crustacea, though I fancy there is a good deal yet to be learned concerning them. .I hope before long to trouble you again with some brief notes on other of the crabs of Gerrans Bay. 38 Notes on a Variety of Portunus marmoreus. By Epwarp Strep, F.L.S. Read May 27th, 1897. HEARING that the ground seans were being worked on Pendowa Beach one evening at the end of March, I wandered up in the hope of finding a few specimens of no value to the fishermen. _ It was quite dark when I arrived, but had it been a night too dark to see anything I should have found the exact locality of operations, owing to the barking of four or five dogs that were keenly interested in the affair, and getting under everybody’s feet. It was the right moment, for the men were just hauling in the long net and picking out the meshed mackerel and “flats.” I saw the fish all cleared out and shared, the sean care- fully heaped on the sand-dune far above high water, and the fisher- men depart to their homes. Then came my turn. I wanted some specimens of Corystes casstvelaunus, the long-armed or masked crab, and should have brought a lantern with me to aid in the search. A few matches were all Ihad in the way ofalight. Seeking the “cod” or bag of the sean, and striking a match, I saw several large shore-crabs (Carcinus mcanas) and velvet fiddlers (Portunus puber), all active and noisy, and thena fine male of Corvyszes. Several other specimens of Coryszes were obtained, but having exhausted my matches, it was easier to get a painful nip from the savage fiddlers than to find the more friendly long-arms. Having previously learned that two other seans had been hauled higher up the bay, I determined to defer further collecting until the following day. A more careful examination of the three seans next day yielded not only a number of specimens of Coryszes, but also several of Polybius henslowit, Leach, and Fortunws marmoreus, Leach, both desirable finds, for I had not previously obtained good specimens of either, they being pelagic in habit. Polydzus is the swimming crab par excellence, for all its limbs with the exception of the powerful chele are flattened for swimming, and the terminal joints of the fifth pair are admirable swimming plates halfan inch across, and three quarters of an inch long, looking as though they had been hammered out thinly to make the most of the material. Then the entire shelly matter is everywhere exceedingly thin and light, to suit its habit of mounting to the surface waters, and chasing such active fishes as the mackerel, to whose back it clings, and from which it carves its dinner. But I am getting away from my subject, which is Portunus mar- moreus. Judging from the specific diagnosis given by Bell, he is right in the supposition that P. marmoreus and P. holsatus are forms of one species; and not greatly differing forms, for without reference types it appears to me that the chief distinction between the two is the comparative breadth and length of the terminal joints of the last pair of limbs. According to this slight foundation upon which to build a new species, my specimens are all referable ‘OZIS VN IVA “YIvAT ‘snaiowAeW snun\og ALS 729vh/ LEE So} Se =—LZZA - st ; PrN = See ‘y 40 to P. marmoreus, for the length of this terminal joint in them is more than twice the breadth. The colour and disposition of the markings in P. marmoreus are different in almost every individual I have seen, and consist of a mottling of red and white spots and lines of various sizes and in- tensities of colour. In some the white is not pure and bright, and yet not sufficiently debased that one could describe it as bluish or greenish or yellowish white ; in others it is clear and bright like white porcelain. So likewise with the reds: these may be pale brownish, bistre, Indian red, or dull crimson; laid on as a network over the white, or sprinkled in dots of several sizes and tones. In this individual those portions of the carapace covering the gastric, the cardiac, and the genital regions are solidly coloured with a dull crimson. Seeing how accurately this coloration corresponds with the boundaries of these regions, I concluded that some diseased condition of the organs beneath had caused the aberration, but on taking off the carapace and examining the tissues beneath I could find not the slightest indication of any cause for the abnormal condi- tion of the exterior. Iam ata loss to explain the variety, but shall keep a sharp look-out for further examples of the species, to find out if this is a recurring variation. Meanwhile I think it is of sufficient interest to be recorded in our “ Proceedings.” Whilst on the subject of swimming crabs I may note that a male specimen of the beautiful Bathynectes longipes (Risso), or long-legged swimming crab, has been recently added to my collection from deep water near here. It is a Mediterranean species, of which the first recorded British specimen was dredged in Cornish waters by Edward Forbes in 1848, and later individuals appear also to have been taken west of Plymouth. The entire upper surface and much of the lower are uniformly coloured bright brownish red. The carapace is some- what boldly sculptured, and its extreme breadth twice the length of its depth from front to back. A prominent ridge extends right along this longer axis, and ends at each extremity in a long and strong spine. The limbs are much longer in proportion to the trunk than in any members of the genus /ortuwnws—where this was formerly placed; the hinder pair, though flattened for swimming, do not indicate that the crab is a surface swimmer, but more probably a denizen of the redweed regions at about fifteen fathoms. It is curious that this, the only specimen I have yet obtained, should also be a singular variety. Normally the antero-lateral margin of the carapace 1s five-toothed, of which the long spine previously mentioned forms the hindmost of the series. Now in my specimen the first and second of these teeth are one, the intervening space being filled up in the course of development. When an opportunity arises for attending a meeting I hope to bring these and other specimens of local Crustacea with me, but I am fearful of entrusting them to the tender mercies of the Parcel Post officials. 41 Spring Butterflies on the Riviera. By J. W. Tutt, F.E.S. Read May 27th, 1897. I HAVE long recognised that a proper study of the time of appear- ance of the Lepidoptera along the Mediterranean littoral in spring was the only means of understanding some of the peculiarities relating to the time of appearance of our own species. In this way the hyber- nating stages of Colas edusa and C. hyale have been set at rest, whilst some light has been thrown on those of Pyvamers cardui and other butterflies. It might be urged that the climatic conditions prevalent along the Mediterranean littoral are so different from those of our own islands, that different habits might well result, even in the same species, when the southern races of butterflies are com- pared with our own. But these differences are of degree rather than of kind, and although frosts are rare during the winter, and thus many delicate species of insects exist in these southern latitudes that cannot live with us, yet there is a distinct winter, z.e., a resting period, when deciduous trees lose their leaves and herbaceous plants are at a standstill, when nights are cold and life is in a static condi- tion, which results in maintaining the hybernating habits in a more or less fixed manner, which we recognise in our latitudes as normal for the various species. Thus Aglais urtice, Lugonia polychloros, Polygonia c-album, and Gonepteryx rhamnt go into hybernation as with us ; whilst Pyvamezs atalanta, which puts off hybernation with us as long as possible, may be seen on any fine day throughout the winter enjoying the sun, and demonstrating that its torpidity is very different from that of Ag/azs, Eugonia, and Polygonia. Besides, it must be borne in mind that the difference between the summer and winter temperatures of Nice, Hyeres, Cannes, &c., is quite equal to, if not greater than, that of our own ; and if the average winter tempe- rature is high, the average summer temperature is much higher, and a difference is thus maintained. But if these differences result in the maintenance of similar habits of wintering in the various species common to the British Islands and the Mediterranean coasts, it produces one marked difference, viz. the development of regularly double or triple broods in species that are normally single or only partially double-brooded with us. This is due essentially to the fact that spring commences earlier, that vegetation is on the move earlier, and progresses at a more rapid rate than with us; whilst the higher temperature that moves the vege- tation so quickly, and thus provides food for lepidopterous larvee, also develops the eggs of Lepidoptera more quickly, promotes the more rapid growth of wintering larvae and the more rapid development of wintering pupze, whilst hybernating imagines are tempted from their 42 hiding-places earlier, and set about the business of egg-laying at a time quite impossible in Britain. The study of a collection of Lepidoptera made by Dr. Chapman during the last week of February, throughout March, and the first fortnight of April, at Cannes, Grasse, and the neighbourhood has perhaps helped to emphasise these points. From this collection one would surmise that whereas in February very few diurnal Lepi- doptera are moving, and that this month thus resembles April with us, the rapidity with which emergences follow each other in March suggests that three weeks at Cannes at this time is sufficient to com- prise the whole gamut of development which occurs with us in May and early June, the middle to the end of April seeing at Cannes the termination of what may be called the purely spring species, the advent of the summer ones, and the rapid growth towards maturity of the larvee of second broods of the early spring species—Spz/o- thyrus alcee, Thanaos tages, Syrichthus malve, Chrysophanus phleas, Cyanirts argiolus, Everes argiades, Polyommatus icarus, P. baton, Nomiades melanops, V. cyllarus, Papilio machaon, P. podalirius, Pieris daplidice, P. brassicae, P. rapa, P. napi, Anthocharis belia, Colias edusa, C. hyale, Melitea cinxia, Argynnis lathonia, Pararge egeria, and P. megera. ‘These feeding larve are the progeny of the eggs laid in March and early April, and they will produce a second brood during the summer months, some as early as May and early June. These in turn will, in due course, produce in some species a third brood in July and August, the progeny from which will go over the winter. As a supplement to these remarks, which are based on a series of letters from Dr. Chapman and the examination of the specimens captured, I append a complete list of the diurnal Lepidoptera seen or captured by him during the spring of this year, chiefly at Cannes. In February.—Lampides boetica, Callophrys rubi, Pieris rape, P. napl, P. brassice, Anthocharis belia, Pararge egeria, P. megera, Polygonia c-album, Euvanessa antiopa, Eugonia polychloros, Pyramets atalanta, P. cardiu. In March and April (to the r2th).—P. egeria, P. megera, Pieris daplidice, P. rape, P. napi, P. brassice, Callophrys rubi, Cyanirts argiolus, Cenonympha pamphilus and ab. lyllus, A. belia, Colias edusa, Thats medestcaste, T. polyxena, Euchloe euphenoides, EF. car- damines, Gonepleryx rhamnt, G. cleopatra, Polygonia egea, P. c-album, Melitea cinxia, Leucophasia sinapis, Thanaos tages, Syrichthus malve, S. alveus, S. sao, Polyommatus baton, Everes argiades, Brenthis dia, Polyommatus tcarus, Nomiades melanops, NV. cyllarus, Papilio podali- rius, P. machaon, Spilothyrus alcee, Erebia epistygne, C. hyale, Chryso- phanus phleas, Argynuts lathonia, Polyommatus bellargus. 43 The British Day Butterflies, and the Changes in the Wings of Butterflies. By Prof. A. RapCLiFFE GROTE, A.M. ead September 23rd, 1897. Ar this time, when different systematists are spreading their classificatory nets over the Lepidoptera, some fixing their webs to the pupe like Dr. Chapman, others to the larve like Dr. Dyar, while again others, like Mr. Meyrick, adopt what may be called the aéronautic plan, and float their fabrications in a general atmosphere of opinion, I have thought it of advantage to study the progress and direction of the changes in a single organ, and that organ the wings. It has so happened that I have been constrained to publish the results hitherto reached by me in German; and while glad to embrace the opportunity of expressing myself in my native tongue, I may do so here at the expense of some repetition, for which I apologise. And first as to the method employed in bringing out a clear and accurately proportioned picture of the neuration. Mr. J. Alston Moffat has recently drawn attention to the fact that I commenced to publish photographic plates illustrating new species of Lepidoptera some three-and-twenty years ago. From these plates, 1874-6, to those recently published in the ‘“‘ Mittheilungen of the Roemer Museum,” in 1895-6,* there is certainly a great progress, which is commensurate with the advance made during this period by the art of photography, and the methods of reproduction itself. While there may be some question as to the merits of the photographic process over engraving when the perfect insect is to be represented, there can be none, I believe, where anatomical preparations are to be considered, such as the neuration of the wings. If there were any such question, I think with deference that it may be considered as settled when we compare, for instance, the drawings say of the venation of Co/ias and Pamphila and Argynnis, given by Mr. Meyrick in his recently published “ Hand- book,” and the photographic impressions in the “ Butterflies of Hildesheim,” issued this year. From the preparations of the neuration laid simply upon glass, enlarged photographs are first made, and then mounted on cards for study. After undergoing secondary processes these impressions are transferred to zinc or stone to be printed. For my study of the day butterflies, the general results of which are briefly given in this paper, such photographs were prepared of all the species which I desired to study. Of each form I usually had both male and female ; but, since sexual differences in the neuration itself (I am not now speaking of the swelling of the veins in the males of certain Nymphalids or * “Die Apateliden” (1895) ; ‘“‘ Die Saturniiden”’ (1896). 44 Satyrids, or of the instances of peculiar structure in the same sex among certain Agaristide) are hardly known to me as yet, a single preparation will commonly suffice. The variation in the neuration of a single species is usually very slight. Where it is perceptible it falls under two heads : (1) the tendency to form extra fragmentary veins, or again, the sudden obliteration of a part of a normal vein ; (2) a variation in the position of the veins which is found to fall in with the general direction taken by the neuration in evolution. ‘The first may be characterised as abnormal. Its cause is obscure to me; and while the sudden appearance of a stump of a new vein may be looked upon as a dis- play of negative growth, the disappearance of a part of a normal nervure or vein may be directly owing to failure in the supply of nutrition. But the zorma/ variation cited under (2) is by far the more interesting. By it I have been furnished with proof that the general direction and progress detected by me in the specialisation of the wing is correct. Thus the individuals of a single species would present different grades of specialisation, just as the assemblages of individuals which we characterise as species present different grades of the same specialisation when compared with each other. In- stances of the aduorma/ class of variation have occurred to me in the genera Melitea, Endromis, Smerinthus. From an examination of a series of Copismerinthus ocellata I have been able to establish various grades of zorma/ variation in the position of the branches of the media. But I am anticipating. The mounted photographs of all the forms proposed to be studied I arranged in lines on shelves, one after another, so that while walking before them I could compare the pictures, note the changes assumed by one and the same nervure in all of them, and alter their sequence. Up to this moment I had been generally content to note merely the differences in the location of the veins. In no paper or book accessible to me was there any indication of a plan or order of these differences having been observed. Always were the changes stated as a mere matter of description,—this vein was thrown off by that one, and so on. Even in the best work we have on the subject, that of Professor Comstock, there is no distinct recognition that in different parts of the wing there is a regularly indicated specialising direction and progression, and that there are here offered distinct gauges of the amount of specialisation exhibited in each of these special cases.* But now, as I made, day after day, these comparisons, the rigid network clearly showed a plastic movement in certain directions ; the evolution of the lepidopterous wing thus became clearer to me. And the principal nervure influencing, seemingly by mechanical means, these changes appeared to me to be the radius, so that a study of the radius was here pressed upon my attention. From its position in the wing the strength of the downward stroke would be naturally registered by the * My obligations to Comstock’s work are very great; no other source has been in a general way more helpful to me. 45 radius ; while the mode of flight, by quick up-and-down beats, or again by a sailing and gliding through the air, could not fail to leave some indication in the framework of the wings as to which mode of progress was chiefly favoured by the insect. Fig. 1—A GENERALISED WING (typical). Hind-wing of Hepialus humuli, enlarged. The impression obtained by photo- graphy, and with the veins all named and numbered, according to the system Redtenbacher-Comstock. Radial nervures = III; Medial nervures = IV; Cubital nervures = V. A study of the Neuroptera and the more generalised types of insects, together with a comparison of /epza/us, shows that in the primitive butterflies the fore and hind wings must have been equally developed, and placed further apart than we find them to-day. The specialisation has proceeded in the direction of a diminution in size of the hind thoracic ring, and a consequent bringing of the front and hind pair of wings together. It has further continued to progress by the greater specialisation of the hind pair over the front pair of wings in the neuration of one and the same individual. For in Hepzalus the hind-wings have a five-branched radius as well as the fore-wings , while almost all other Lepidoptera have the radius three- to five- branched on the front wings and only one-branched on the second- aries. ‘The only exceptions so far known are the Micropterygides, and perhaps also certain Tineids, such as C. fameliella. ‘There- fore, in this main point, the hind-wings are generally the more 46 specialised as compared with the primaries. An explanation for this I have offered in that the hind-wings bear more of the weight of the body (abdomen), and that they also check the downward stroke of the primaries. ‘The cause is thus mechanical, and a parallel is suggested with the four-footed Vertebrates in which the hind limbs are the more specialised. More than this, in the two principal directions by which the evolutionary progress is expressed, it is in the hind-wings that the direction is usually, if not always, accentuated. It is as if, as I have said elsewhere, “‘a wave passed over the wings, coming from the hind pair and breaking over the primaries, carrying these frail creatures farther along their airy paths into their unknown future.” Having thus briefly sketched the general progress of the wings, we come now to the special directions which this progress takes in the neuration, and which revealed themselves through my compara- tive studies by means of enlarged photographs. The first of these directions is expressed by the changes in the media and its branches. A glance at the accompanying figure of the hind-wing of /efza/us (so far as the points here to be considered are concerned, it matters not whether we take the fore or hind-wing) shows us the media as a furcate vein traversing the median cell from the base of the wing to the cross-vein. From the cross-vein three separate branches reach the exterior margin. According to the embryological studies of Spuler the cubitus 1s two-branched, so that the present three separate branches belong to the media. Now this whole series of the media is undergoing a systematic change in the direction of disappearance. Let us take the base of the media first. In most of the specialised Lepidoptera this base has already ceased to have any function ; it has degenerated into a scar, or it has quite vanished. In some forms there are little spurs running back from the cross-vein, indicating where the basal portion of the nervure used to join on; but there is no more any connection with the base of the wing, and the nutriment for the branches is supplied through the cross-vein of the cell. The base having gone, the cross-vein itself is the next to disappear. The same process is repeated, the vein parting between IV 1 and IV 3, so that in the more specialised day butterflies and emperor moths the cell opens, and finally all trace of the cross-vein is lost. Accord- ing to my friend Dr. Seitz, the disappearance of the cross-vein in the butterflies is a recently acquired character. Now what becomes of the three branches running from the cross-vein to the external margin of the wing? We must compare as many wings as possible to fully answer the question. It at last appears that the solution les with the fate of the middle one of the three, with vein* IV 2. We * The use of the word “vein” to designate the tubular rods which support the membrane of the wings has been properly objected to, since these struc- tures are not homologous with the veins of the higher animals. The word ‘“nervure” has been proposed, but this word in its origin from ‘“ nerve” would 47 must first arrive at a conception of the most generalised position for this middle branch. Again appealing to Hepzalus, we find this position to be a central one. But in many forms the branch is drawn towards the radius ; in others towards the cubitus. Whereas, in Ty+9 Fig. 2—A SpECIALISED WING (typical). Fore-wing of Attacus atlas, natural size, from a photographic impression (to illustrate the first and second directions of evolutionary change). The middle branch of the media, vein IV 2, has yielded to the attraction of the radius. The cross-vein has disappeared. All traces of the media as a distinct system have vanished. The two upper branches have become completely fused with the radial system; the lower branch, IV 3, with the cubital. Absorption of the upper radial veins has also commenced. The branches III 1 and III 2 are represented by a single vein, II] 1 + 2. The vein III 3 is greatly reduced, and indicates an absorption by III 4. the breaking up of the cross-vein, the upper branch a/ways follows the radius except in /Yesferia, where it shares the isolated fate of IV 2, and the lower follows the cubitus, the middle branch is some- also not be perhaps strictly applicable. The word “vein” is used in a popular sense for these structures, as also for the ribs of the leaf. In German they are called “ Rippen,” z.e. “ribs,” but of course they are equally not homologous with bony structures. The word “ vein” is not only shorter, but it seems to be familiar, and universally understood when used in this connection. It is here hardly a matter of using a word securing a better definition of the object as between ‘‘vein”’ and “nervure.’’ My aim here, as always, is to be understood by using plain terms. 48 times pulled this way and sometimes that way. Therefore the evolution of the branches of the media may be described as running up into a contest between radius and cubitus for the possession of these, the residue of the medial system, after the disappearance of the base of the nervure traversing the cell, and of the cross-vein connecting the main systems above and below the media and supporting its three branches. But this struggle is not in every case decided as between radius and cubitus. Sometimes, as in the Lyceenidze and Hesperiadee, the cross-vein retires on either side of the middle branch, leaving it stranded. It thus maintains its generalised and central position, resisting the attractions of both of the opposing systems. It is left to its certain fate. Deprived of nutriment by the degeneration of the cross-vein, it dwindles to a fold or scar, and finally disappears altogether. The breaking up of the medial system is not stayed. The upper and lower branches become part and parcel of the radial or cubital systems, and if the middle branch yields and goes over finally to one or the other, its existence as a vein is pro- longed, otherwise not. Evidently, therefore, we have in the condition and relative position of this middle branch of the media, vein IV 2,a gauge for the amount of specialisation. The more it becomes united with either the radial or cubital system, the greater the extent of specialisation. In a general view this process of the evolution of the medial system may be regarded as one of ab- sorption, either through degeneration or a fusion with other veins or systems of veins. So that here, and before dismissing our con- sideration of this frst direction in which we find a movement among the veins of the wing we can set up our thesis—~he extent of the absorption is everywhere the measure of the specialisation.* We now come to the second direction. It affects the radius of the fore-wings especially, which we have seen to be three- to five-branched, and it relates to the disappearance of these branches. The more generalised condition of the radius is clearly that in which it has five branches reaching the margins of the wing. But in the more specialised of the forms one or two of the branches have disappeared. These branches are those which arise from the upper side of the radius, and which reach to the costa and apex. We find this disappearance in Parnassius, Pierts,t Thecla, and the emperor moths. The radius remains five-branched in Papilio, Nymphalis, Hesperia, Sphinx. JT am merely citing prominent examples. We have a condition in which all five branches are distinct and_ separate (Hesperia), then one in which III 4 and III 5 are furcate, etc. ; then various combinations, principally affecting veins III 3 to III 5, the =< Canw Ent.) 29) 17/5. y It is perhaps on account of this suppression of the radial veins that Mr. Meyrick brings Lycena and Pieris together, in any case overlooking the fact that the plan of the Pierid wing is Nymphalid; the plan of the Lyczenid wing is Hesperid. 49 latter remaining constant and apparently forming the final or main extension of the radius, and corresponding to III of the hind wings. This process of absorption seems to be carried furthest in the common Mancpium brassice, for which we have to use the three- branched formula: III 1, III 2, III 3+ 4+ 5. Again, sometimes III x and III 2 are represented by a single vein, III 1 + 2, as in Farnassius and certain emperor moths. On the lower side of the radius the frst direction comes into play. The first medial branch, IV 1, which, in Vymphais and the four-footed butterflies generally, is still attached to the cross-vein, now leaves this position, and travels along the lower side of the radius, asin /veris and Vemeobius, until the point of its emergence therefrom approaches the extremity of the nervure. In this movement of IV 1 we have also a gauge of the amount of specialisation, and /vev7s and Memeobius are undoubtedly in this respect highly specialised. We are here not concerned with the physiological process underlying all these changes. We are endeavouring to determine the phylogeny by means of ascer- taining the amount of progress in the specialisation of the neuration. Here, as elsewhere, the direction must be first established, then the order in which the changes in the position of the veins follow one another, and lastly the mode and method of evolution. Leaving these two prime directions, the fzs¢ of which is still in action on both wings, whereas the second would seem to have culminated for the hind-wings by the attainment of a single branched radius in the bulk of the Lepidoptera, we may briefly consider other changes by absorption in the network of the wings. On the hind- wings the veins II and III are more or less fused at base. Evidently the forms in which this fusion is slight or even wanting (Left:dia) are less specialised than those in whic. it is carried up to the point of emergence of the short spur representing vein I. On this excess of specialisation I have founded the sub-family Nymphaline, and I see by the figure of Basz/archia astyanax in Prof. Comstock’s beauti- ful ‘‘ Handbook,” that this character obtains for the North American genera also. It has, therefore, a meaning, and this meaning must be expressed by a classificatory term. On the hind-wings, also, the point of juncture of the cross-vein with the cubital system varies. In the more specialised four-footed butterflies, the Nymphalide and the first sub-family I have established in the Meadow Browns (Agapetidze = Satyridee of authors, the latter name being preoccupied according to Scudder), the Pararginee, this juncture is effected at or excessively near the furcation of the first cubital branch, V 1. In the more generalised Agapetidz and in the Limnadidz the juncture is effected with the lowest branch of the medial system itself, vein IV 3, and this method is characteristic also for the Pieridz ; so that here again we have a character of specialisation by which to guide our phylogenetic researches. Other points are offered by the suppression of the internal veins, such as we find in the absence of vein VIII of the hind wings in the 4 50 Parnassi-Papilionide. All changes of position by the moving veins should be noted and appreciated through comparison. Having thus attained in outline a general knowledge and con- ception of the direction of specialisation in the wings of the Lepidoptera as a whole, let us apply it cautiously to a single group, the day butterflies. On comparing all these forms it becomes at once evident that these directions, above described by me, arise independently on different lines of general structure and probable descent. They are therefore to this extent secondary. We are not to throw all the three-branched forms and all the five-branched together, which is what would be perhaps done by uncritical students. Along with all the other general points of agreement the evolution of the neuration goes hand in hand. It claims in classification no preponderant part, but one of equal consideration. A system must be sought which will avoid contradictions from any side. Perhaps a clear example of the secondary value of the neuration is offered by the suppression of the radial veins in the Parnassiide, the Lyczenidz, and again in the Pieridae. This direction is taken identically in separate groups not otherwise nearly related, or possibly arising directly together, just as (and I agree here with my excellent friend Dr. Chapman) the abbreviate male fore-leg has plainly deve- loped itself independently in the Blues from the appearance of a similar but more developed abortive structure in the Nymphalids. The ancestors of both we safely assume to have been possessed of six unabbreviated legs, but their common ancestry is a remote one. In the same way the suppression of the radial veins has commenced independently in the Parnassians, in the Whites, and in the Blues, these groups having all clearly possessed a five-branched radius, as is proved by its present retention and occurrence in many of the existing generalised forms. ‘The Pierids, as is shown by the general fashion of the wing, represent rather a continuation of the main or Nymphalid-Hesperid stem, the Blues a development of the specially Hesperid branch, as I judge from the same considerations, the grounds for this view being given in some detail in my “ Butterflies of Hildesheim.” That the action is unequal, sometimes hastened, sometimes retarded, that the same wing presents in its different parts a different degree of specialisation, we can see by the particular study of Papc/ro. On the primaries the radius is five-branched, and thus generalised as compared with Parzass‘us. ‘The media and the medial system is generalised by the closed cell and central position of the middle branch ; on the secondaries the middle branch already yields to the cubitus, and is therefore here more specialised. Whether the curved internal vein of primaries is a generalisation or not is uncertain ; it may be admitted as probable. On the hind wings the suppression of vein VIII on the internal margin is a distinct specialisation over all the other butterflies. From the neuration, then, the Parnassi- 51 Papilionidz, which two groups hang together, compare favourably with the Nymphalidze, in which the radius is always five-branched, and which have not lost vein VIII of the secondaries. Alone in the direction of the suppression of the media are the Nymphalids clearly advanced and ahead. Leaving these instances of general application, we come to the lessons to be derived from our studies in the direction of genera and groups having these genera as their bases, groups having the genus as the unit, just as the genus has the species, the species the indi- vidual. And here we shall both more easily illustrate the use of our observations and subserve the earnestness and honesty of science if we review what has been recently published without this knowledge —published with the air of possessing it, and going wrong with a great show of going right. In Mr. Meyrick’s recently published ‘Handbook of British Lepidoptera” we find no higher grouping of the genera of the meadow browns, the Agapetidz or Satyridee, such as we have seen above to be warranted from a study of the neuration of the secondaries. Further, we find a genus Pararge, which contains two species, P. egeria and P. megera. Now these two species belong to the group of meadow browns which we have called Pararginge, and in which the cross-vein of hind-wings joins vein V 1, although they differ between themselves sufficiently structurally to warrant our calling the second species Lastommata megera.* Not only is the value of the character of the hind-wings lost by placing them between genera (Sat¢yrus, Melan- argia) which do not possess it, but we are favoured on the preceding page with a phylogenetic tree in which Parvarge is derived froma genus (Epinephele) which does not possess the character (which is credible), but gives birth to a genus (AZe/anargia) which is just like the pre- sumed ancestor (Zfznephele) in also not possessing it (which is simply incredible). And it is the same with all the phylogenies of Mr. Meyrick that I have been able to examine at all carefully. The reason for this is plain: Mr. Meyrick is without any gauge to measure specialisation, hence his approximations rest on opinion more or less idle. The same objection applies to his phylogeny of the day butterflies and of the Nymphalide. Not one of the figures of neuration given by Mr. Meyrick appears to me correct, so far as I have been able to compare the originals. Nota few of them (for instance, among the day butterflies those of edusa, adippe, and sy/vanus) are caricatures. For any purposes of study they are inexact and misleading. ‘The delicate differences cannot be given by such loose sketches, and it is perhaps natural that Mr. Meyrick’s text hardly * It is a want of ordinary discrimination which allows Mr. Meyrick to associate these species in a single genus, and which also permits him to classify Brephos among the ‘ Monocteniadz.”’ There are, however, many rules of nomenclature which he breaks, and many common-sense conclusions as to analogy and affinity which he affronts in the ‘‘ Handbook.’ There is no warrant in Darwinism for his blind treatment of a class of facts as to which any collector is better informed. D2 alludes to these drawings. The purpose of their presence in the “ Handbook” is therefore unexplained. In the Geometridz a series of figures have been given by Mr. Meyrick in the “ Transactions of the London Entomological Society,” in which an additional internal, short, downwardly curved vein is given on the fore-wings which I cannot find in nature. ‘This vein 1s, moreover, omitted from a number of the drawings of the neuration of Geometridz in the Handbook. Further than this, the short vein VIII, which forms a loop to VII at the base of the wing, is figured by dots, which should indicate a scar or fold. But in nature I find instead a true tubular vein. Relying upon Mr. Meyrick’s figures, I had supposed a possible relation between the Parnasst-Papilionide and the Geometride, which I must now consider illusory after exa- mining the neuration of the latter group myself. It may be said that other authors make similar mistakes, that Spuler, for instance, in his ‘‘ Inaugural Dissertation,” Taf. xxv, fig. 25 a, contrives to insert an entire extra branch running to the external margin of the fore-wings of /rer7s drassice. It may be said that Mr. Meyrick’s fantastic and unreasonable general arrangement of the order, his meagre diagnoses, his unexplained nomenclature, with its absence of types and dates, his arbitrary phylogeny, may be matched (though I doubt it) elsewhere. Finally, the critic may be met with the commonplace, Quot homines tot sententie. But almost anyone will readily follow me here ; no other writer has ventured before the public with such a preface to such a book. In this Mr. Meyrick applies the ill-sounding adjective of ‘‘pseudo-scientific” to the mainly de- scriptive work of the late M. Guenée. Much more than to the work of this well-meaning and industrious writer might this wrongly used term apply to the publications of Mr. Meyrick, with their incorrect figures and unfounded, dogmatically worded conclusions. For what M. Guenée gave was vea/, not false science, and may readily be seen to have been useful and even necessary. The ‘‘Spécies Général” is the beginning—it may be considered the feeble beginning—of a descrip- tive work upon the butterflies of the world, and it requires a singular want of insight in the progress of lepidopterology not to recognise this merit. Aea/ science Guenée gave us, although it may not always be science of the first order. For this, indeed, we have no lack of modern authorities, and we can quite afford to leave M. Guenée in his little niche in the temple of fame unbesmirched. One difference between M. Guenée and Mr. Meyrick Hes in this, that in Azs preface the French author modestly apologises for the failings of his book, which he finds much less perfect than he had allowed himself to dream ; while in Azs preface Mr. Meyrick finds no room for any such regret. More than this, Mr. Meyrick ventures upon the remark that “it is perhaps not very creditable to British lepidopterists that so little progress should have been made meanwhile in this direc- tion,” z.e. between the publication of “‘ The Origin of Species” and the appearance of Mr. Meyrick’s “Handbook.” And then Mr. . 53 Meyrick proceeds to give us this needed progress. Who that has read Darwin, the carefully recorded facts, the modest style, the inferences appearing quietly as of themselves, and arising naturally and even unobtrusively out of the same facts, can find any resemblance at all between Darwin and Meyrick? Or does Mr. Meyrick suppose that unsupported statements such as “It is an offshoot of Chloroclystis,” ““A development of Zephroclystis,” &c., &c., constitute Darwinism ? Of the spirit of Darwinism, its constant appeal to reasonableness, its ability to recognise the requirements of scientific proof, Mr. Meyrick appears to have caught indeed very little. But of the letter, and that one thing must have emerged from another thing, Mr. Meyrick seems to have caught enough, only he applies what he has in an arbitrary manner, a manner which must unfortunately arouse suspicion and convey distrust. In our studies of the venation of the day butterflies we have found nothing to warrant in any decided fashion the pre-eminence given by Bates to the Nymphalidz. ‘These lag behind the Pierids in that the radius remains in a generalised condition, and is five-veined. ‘They show an advance in the movement of the middle branch of the media towards the radius, in the opening of the cell and the erasure of the cross-vein in the more specialised genera ; but the upper branch of the media is in no instance, so far as I am aware, fused with the radius, as it is in /verzs and LVemeobius. In the hind wings the Nymphalids are more specialised (in addition to the above characters of the primaries, which apply to the secondaries also) by the greater extent of the fusion of II and III at base. In the more specialised groups (Nymphalidze, Pararginee, Libytheidze) the cross-vein retires to the point of issuance of the first branch of the cubitus, showing a greater amount of absorption apparently than we find in the Pieride, in the Agapetinee or more generalised meadow browns, and in the Limnadidee (Danaide). The Libytheidz overlap the more generalised Satyrids. The only grand division among the Diurnals which the neuration calls upon us to make is a separation of the Parnassi-Papilionidze from the rest of the butterflies, including the Hesperiadz. For in the first-named group we find a strongly marked, short, and down- wardly curved vein at the base of the primaries on internal margin. In the Pieri-Hesperiade this vein is wanting. Instead there is an upwardly curved, short vein, or scar of such a vein, or again obliterated, which coming from the base of the wing joins the vein VII at its outer end, forming a loop. ‘Thus the direction of the two veins is diametrically opposed. Whether I am night in numbering these internal veins differently, or whether they are homologous, notwithstanding the difference in position and direction, does not alter my position that thereby a diphyletic origin of our day butterflies is indicated. A reply to those who assign a low rank to Papilio is further found in a specialisation of the secondaries in its group, one by which vein VIII has become lost. The Parnassi-Papilionide 54 differ from all the other butterflies in this respect, so far as known to me. The arguments of Mr. Wallace and Mr. W. H. Edwards as to the supremacy of Pafz/zo appear to me somewhat fanciful, but I agree that there 1s no good reason for altering the main Linneean arrange- ment of 1758, so far as a linear series is concerned. Only since I have demonstrated that the Parnassians are more specialised than the Papilionide, 1 would commence to arrange the Papilionides in a linear classification by the enumeration of the forms of the Parnassiidze, while I must insist that these two families are directly related. ‘They both have the curved internal vein of fore-wings and the suppressed vein VIII on secondaries. I venture to give here a list of the British day butterflies. I have taken asa basis the list published by Mr. Tutt in the “ Entomologists’ Record,” vol. vu, p. 300. The generic nomenclature is that corrected by Mr. Scudder, with the exception mainly of certain names in the Blues, where I follow Mr. Kirby. But I must protest, with Mr. Scudder, against the further use of the name ‘“ P/edezws,” and the crediting of such a name to Linné, in whose works it is not to be found. ‘The plural form “ //edezz” is not used by Linné in a sense corresponding with that of a genus. I have ventured to retain the name JZel/itea, since it dates from 1807, and cannot fall before Mehtea, which, according to Mr. Scudder (‘‘ Historical Sketch,” p- 215), dates from 1809. As between Lemonzas, Hubner, with the hardly certain date 1806, and JZe/ztea, we should prefer the Fabrician designation which has the sanction of established usage. It is to be regretted that there is no unanimity between Mr. Scudder and Mr. Kirby as to generic types in the Blues. The whole matter seems to depend on the type of /olyommatus, Latr., and Cupido, Schrk. The use of the former for corvzdon, and the latter for mznxzma, determines the use of ZLampides for boetica. Since Latreille figures coridon, and there is an argument, however “‘ far-fetched,” for Schrank’s intention, I follow Mr. Kirby. Super-fam. . PAPILIONIDES. Fam: .: -, “7 “PAPVIO@ONTD Al: Sub-fam.. . PAPILIONIN. Gen.” ..-. |. Papilio; Wine, 1758: Typ. . P. machaon. 1. machaon, Linné. Super-ffam. . HESPERIADES. Fam. 0. 4: SIE REDAS Sub-fam.. . PIERINA. aLriDs., say chee aE LeLIMie Gen. . . . Mancipium, Hubn., 1806. Typ. . M. brassice. 2. brassice, Linné. Gen. . . . Fteris, Schrank, 1801. iiyp. (1) (Pamape: Io. Il. 12. ee rape, Linné. napi, Linné. Gen. Typ. P. daplidice. daplidice, Linné. alias Aporini. Gen. Aporia, Hubn., 1816. Typ. A. crategi. crateegi, Linné. Aisi, Rhodocerini. Gen. Colias, Fabr., 1807. = Gonepteryx, Leach, 1815. Typ. C. rhamni. rhamni, Linné. Agila Eurymini. Gen. Eurymus, Swains., 1829. = Colias, Auct. (nec Fabr.). Typ. K. hyale. hyale, Linné. edusa, Fabr. atribs. Antrocharini. Gente Fuchloé, Hiibn., 1816. Typ. E. cardamines. cardamines, Linné. Sub-fam. . LEPTIDIINE. Gene. Leptidia, Bilberg, 1820. = Leucophasia, Steph., 1827. Typ. L. sinapis. sinapis, Linné. Harness NYMPHALIDA. Sub-fam. . NYMPHALIN&. rab, 2 Limenitini. Gen. Limenitis, Fabr., 1807. Typ. L. camilla. sibilla, Linné. Sub-fam. . ARGYNNINE, ARDS Apaturini. Gen. . Potamis, Hutbn., 1806. = Apatura, Auct. (nec Fabr.), Typ. bolina. Typ. Be 1s: iris, Linné. Tribes Vanessini. 55 Pontia, Fabr., 1807. 14. 15. 16. 172 18. 19. 20. 24. 2. 56 Geni). Vanessa Habreiso7- = Pyrameis, Hiibn., 1816. Typ. . V. atalanta. atalanta, Linné. cardui, Linné. Gens. . . Polygonzaltubn’, 1816: = Grapta, Kirb:, 13837. Typ...) Pcalbum: c-album, Linné. Gen, . 3 7 | #vdconzaMaubn., 1816: Typ. . E. polychloros.. polychloros, Linné. Gen. . . . Euvanessa, Scudd., 1889. = Scudderia, Grt., 1873 (preocc.). Typ. . E. antiopa. antiopa, Linné. Gen: . .. . Aamadryas, Hubn., 1806: ALSVO.es 2, Meds 10, io, Linné. Gene.) 3 2 dg/o7s, Dalim 6S 16: diyps “4 \Aceuuticce: urtice, Linné. Unb. <>. “Meliteini: Gen. 25). wWehiea Ea brs 1807 = Lemonias, Hiibn., 1806 (date not quite assured). Typ.’ <- Me ‘onmiat aurinia, Rott. cinxia, Linné. athalia, Rott. Tob. .°. .) Argsynnimn: Gen. . . . Dryas setubn:, 1806. Typ. . D. paphiat paphia, Linné. Gen. . . . J/ssomramietibn., 1316: Typ. . I. lathonia. lathonia, Linné. Gen. . « . HO hyperanthus: hyperanthus, Linné. (iri) 2 so Erebiinit Genwi) a 7co7a Walmer Tone: Dyps 2) 7 Eeliges:. aethiops, Esp. epiphron, Knoch. Trib. . . . Cenonymphini. Geno .) Cenonymphay Abn. 18 16. Mypage =. we: Cedipus: tiphon, Rott. pamphilus, Linné. fini...) Maniolinir Gens. .,)5.' Lyronia; Tdubn., 1816. iyo: = P. tithonus: tithonus, Linné. Genye. =. A7aniola, Schrank, v8or. divpw. M. ianira. lanira, Linné (iurtina, L.). Trib. . . . Eumenini. Gent LL Uu7e77s., Elune. L3n 6; ypu H-semele: 40. semele, Linné. Fam. . NEMEOBIIDA. Gen. Nemeobius, Steph., 1827. Typ. N. lucina. 41. lucina, Linné. Fam. . LYCAINID-. Sub-fam. . THECLIN. Nalay Theclini. Gen. Callophrys, Bilberg, 1820. Typ. C. rubi. 42. rubi, Linné. Gen... Thecla, Fabr., 1807. Typ. T. spini. 43. pruni, Linné. 44. w-album, Knoch. 58 Abrib. @ Zephyrini. Gen. Aurotis, Dalm., 1816. Typ. A. quercus. 45. quercus, Linné. Gennare — Lephyrus, Dalm., 1816. Typ. Z. betulee. 46. betulee, Linné. Sub-fam. . LYCANINA. Abell Lycenini. Gen. Lampides, Huibn., 1816. Typ. L. beetica. 47. beetica, L. (Gena esi LEveres, Hiibn., 1816. Typ. E. argiades. 48. argiades, Pall. Gen. Lyceides, Hubn., 1816. Typ. L. gon. 49. vegon, Schiff.* Gen. Polyommatus, Latr. Typ. P. coridon. 50. icarus, Rott. 51. bellargus, Rott. 52. astrarche, Bergs. * Rusticus argus, L., which is difficult to distinguish from Lyceides egon, except by the absence of the claw to the front tibiz, is not listed from England. It is not certain that the species of Polyommatus differ structurally from Rusticus argus. 53: 54- 55: 56. 57: 53. 59: 60. 61. 62. 66. 67. coridon, Poda. Gen. Typ. semiargus, Rott. Gen. Typ. arion, Linné. Gen. Typ. minima, Fuess. Gene ome Typ. argiolus, Linné. aris. Gen. Typ. phlzas, Linné. Gene Typ. dispar, Haw. Fam. . Sub-fam. . Gen. Typ. paleemon, Pall. Genii Typ. comma, Linné. Gentian: Typ. sylvanus, Esp. Gen. Typ. acteeon, Esp. thaumas, Hufn. lineola, Ochs. Sub-fam. . Genkee Typ. malvee, Linné. Gen. . Typ. tages, Linné. 59 Nomiades, Htibn., 1816. N. semiargus. Lycena, Fabr., 1807. L. arion. Cupido, Schrank, 18o0r. C. minima. Cyaniris, Dalm., 1816. C. argiolus. Chrysophanini. Fleodes, Dalman, 1816. H. phleeas. Chrysophanus, Hubn., 1816. C. hippothoé. HESPERIAD. PAMPHILINA. Pamphila, Fabr., 1807. = Carterocephalus, Led., 1852. P. paleemon. Lrynnits, Schrank, 1801. E. comma. Angiades, Hubn., 1816. A. sylvanus. Adopea, Bilberg, 1820. A. thaumas. HESPERIINE. flesperia, Fabr., 1793. H. malve. Thanaos, Boisd., 1832. T. tages. 60 The above arrangement of the British butterflies is based upon the specialisation of the neuration within the groups. I have taken the families as I found them, and I have used the specialisations of the wing as a guide by which to arrange the genera within the families. I have merely tried to avoid the course of Mr. Meyrick, of deriving a specialised from a generalised genus, and then reversing the process and making the specialised give birth again to a generalised group. Where I have fallen short it will be found either that my guide has forsaken me (as in the Blues, where the neuration is so uniform that I have not studied it in all the species, and thus not so thoroughly as I should), or that I have not properly attended to its teachings. I state this as plainly as possible, in order to avoid the repetition of the reproach that I have taken an “artificial” character to the detriment of a “natural” classification, though what there is “artificial ” about the neuration I do not at all comprehend. What these critics mean, probably, is that I have leaned too strongly upon a single character or class of characters; and I have tried to show above that this criticism arises from the critics not understanding what I have chiefly done. But I have certainly not rejected the main evidence of the neuration where it has been overwhelming, as in the case of Vemeobzus. A critic in “ Psyche” cites my founding a distinct family upon this type as a fatal instance of my reliance on a single character. But I suspect that this critic himself may have so conspicuously neglected the neuration, and the lessons to be derived therefrom, that I should be able to find, perhaps, North American Nemeobiidz among his Erycinidz or Riodinidz. So far from entertaining any undue par- tiality for the neuration otherwise than as a means to an end, viz. the comprehension of the phylogeny of the butterflies, I have at once allowed the Riodinidz to stand, although they are quite on a level with the Zephyrini, and their separation from the Zheclime must be urged mainly, I think, on other grounds than the condition of the wings. The case of /Vemeodius is that unless we throw the structure of the wings entirely overboard, and neglect its teachings altogether, we must agree that here we have so distinct a type, as compared with the Lyceenid, that the character is sufficiently strong to support a family separation. For if the wing of /Vemeodius were studied by itself, it would be thought to be that of a five-branched Pierid. A parallel suggests itself with the Megathymidz. This North American group is a highly specialised one, an offshoot from the Hesperid type, in some respects retaining perhaps ancestral features, perhaps specialised through what we are apt to call degeneration,—as, for instance, are the Citheroniine also. In J/egathymus the middle branch of the media has abandoned its indifferent original position, and has succumbed to the attractions of the cubitus, as I see from Prof. Comstock’s beautiful and reliable figures. As to the position of Papz/io, we can at once understand how flagrant a mistake it is to place it between Zycena and Flesperia, when we see that the Lyczenid wing is deducible from the Hesperid and the Papilionid wing is not nearly related to either. 61 Having thus, I hope, made good my position as against my critics, let us briefly review the phylogeny of the British butterflies as it pre- sents itself in its fragmentary condition, with so many gaps, so many unrepresented groups. And first let us admit, at the outset, that the evidence for the probable phylogeny of the Lepidoptera is only cir- cumstantial, and has merely a certain and shifting grade of probability to sustain it. Often it is only a bare possibility, and we see how Mr. Meyrick treats such probabilities or possibilities with his dog- matic phrases, “an offshoot,” &c. ; “‘a development,” &c. ; when in truth he knows nothing positively as to what he affirms, and in mis- understanding the neuration, and producing defective studies upon it, really neglects what might put him upon the right track. Having thus schooled ourselves to regard our discoveries as evidence not positive, but circumstantial merely, led us to see what the neuration teaches us as to the British butterflies especially, and the Diurnals in general. First we must separate the Papilionid phylum, and for the reason that it presents a character, the down- wardly curved internal vein, which all the other butterflies do not share. Next we find that the other, Hesperid phylum, offers, in the Pieridz, an example of specialisation in two directions ; the breaking up of the media and the diminution of the radial veins. The Pierini overreach here the highest group of the four-footed butterflies or Nymphalide, since the radial veins are reduced at times to three, while at the same time the reduction of the media and its system is well progressed. The probable phylogeny of the Pierinze stands thus : Mancipium and Freris are nearly related and probable developments of each other, JZ. brassice seeming to be the youngest form. We then come to Ponta, which appears to be a more remote development on the ancestral line of the five-branched Axthocharint, which latter would represent an older phase of the /vev7z@. Between the three and four branched and the five-branched genera come, as lateral and peculiarly specialised offshoots, Colzas (Gonepteryx) and Lurymus (Colias). ‘The grounds for the view that xhamnz represents a specialised mimetic form may probably strike every one. A long way from all these stands szzafzs, a strangely isolated form, perhaps in its turn a specialisation of an older type of the Whites, and retaining some ancestral features, with the middle branch of the media leaning turned towards the cubitus on hind wings, an odd reminder of Papz/io. Leaving the Pierids, we come to the Nymphalids, and here we find our characters for rank mainly determined by the perfection which the breaking up of the media attains, and the amount of the absorption of II by III on the secondaries. A character to separate the purple emperor from the meadow browns, with which Mr. Tutt associates it, is found in the position of veins IIT 4 and III 5, which are given off to the outer margin as in Vanessa. ‘The swollen vein in the male may indicate a lost line of connection between the Nym phalids and Satyrids, or it may be an independent acquirement. This beautiful butterfly appears to be more specialised than Vanessa, 62 through the greater suppression of the media and its system, and should therefore head the list after the Wymphaine. ‘These latter butterflies are only represented in Britain by Zzmenztes ; they differ from all the other true forest butterflies by the amount of absorption of II by III on the secondaries above alluded to. All the other Nympha- lidee have vein II only absorbed by III to a varying point, but one below the point of issuance of I. The other Nymphalids lie here behind Zimenztis and Mymphalis. Argynnis is the most generalised genus. From Argynnis-like ancestors JZetea seems to have proceeded. ‘This is rendered likely by the actual fusion of III 2 with the radius in A/e/tea at a point only indicated in Arvgyunis. The Satyrids are certainly less specialised than the forest butterflies. They fall into two groups, of which it seems to me that the Pararginze (Pararge and Lastommata) are the most specialised. A sequence of the other minor groups of meadow browns is difficult to establish from the neuration, it is so uniform. The Agapetine resemble the white in the position of the cross-vein of secondaries, and also by the same character the Zzmnadide—the latter an exotic group, evidently more generalised than the meadow browns, and introduced by Mr. Tutt into the British lists upon the strength of the fact that