INSECTS ERRONEOUSLY REFERRED TO BUTTERFLIES. 05 



to the median vein; in no Lepidoptera can any such irregularity be shown, 

 nor so disproportionate a magnitude of the area covered by the median nervure 

 and its branches; a branched internal vein and cross-veins, which probably united 

 all the longitudinal nervures at no great distance from the outer border (but which 

 can only be certainly predicated for the lower three median interspaces), place this 

 insect wholly beyond the pale of the Lepidoptera. It is but fair to say that Mr. 

 Butler, having examined the original after he had in his possession a tracing of fig. 

 8, denies the existence of the cross-veins ; there is one point, however, which an 

 unprejudiced examination of the fossil cannot fail to show; that Butler's "fourth 

 branch" of the subcostal 1 arises not from his third branch, but from his upper dis- 

 coidal vein ; if he can reconcile either this or the points already referred to (on the 

 supposition that his sketch is otherwise an accurate one) with the neuration of any 

 group of butterflies, the writer will be the first to acknowledge it. 



As our only purpose in this place is to deny the lepidopterous character of 

 Palreontina, it is unnecessary to say anything in defence of the view we have 

 expressed of its homopterotis affinities; the superior position of the cell, the posi- 

 tion and character of the lower cross veins (which we believe really traversed the 

 entire wing), with their origin at the indentation of the lower border, suggest such 

 a relationship, although there are not a few points in which it differs somewhat 

 strikingly from living types. 



The discovery of a fossil in the cabinet of the Rev. Mr. Brodie, which was 

 found in England at the same or nearly the same horizon, as P. oolitica, and which 

 seems to be a pupa case of one of the Cicadida of rather unusual size, renders my 

 suggestion more worthy of credence. 



At the conclusion of his latter paper Mr. Butler draws attention to the fact 

 that Messrs. Westwood and Bates had expressed their agreement with his views. 

 It should, however, be borne in mind, that, so far as appears from any facts which 

 have been published, these gentlemen, whose well considered views upon the sub- 

 ject would unquestionably be of great weight, expressed this assent only upon a 

 brief evening examination of a very obscure fossil in a poorly lighted hall, and 

 before any one had questioned its lepidopterons character. 



1 In this rase he counts from the tip of the wing, in reverse order. 



