440 [December 1898 



CORRESPONDENCE 



THE CLASSIFICATION OF BUTTERFLIES 



In brief reply to your note on page 298, vol. xiii. , I would state that the parity of 

 specialisation in the feelers of the Papilionidae and Nymphalidae does not necessarily 

 authorise the association of the groups. I have not separated the Papilionides (Parnas- 

 siidae and Papilionidae) upon any characters of sjjecialisation, but upon a fundamental 

 divergence in the structure of the wings, such a divergence as indicates, in my opinion, 

 a distinct phylogenetic line and is plainly available for taxonomic purposes. The gist 

 of my article in Natural Science and of that in the Proceedings of the American Philoso- 

 phical Society is, that parallel specialisations in any one organ do not authorise associa- 

 tion, since they have been independently acquired. Rank is a relative conception. 

 I do not claim that the Papilionides should outrank all the other butterflies, but I do 

 claim that they cannot be logically interpolated between any of the groups of the other 

 butterflies, a mode of classification as old as Roesel, revived by Bates, Distant, Scudder, 

 Renter, and others. This interpolation cannot take place because the Papilionides 

 possess, in vein ix. of primaries, a morphological character unshared by all the other 

 butterflies, which again have in common a loopdike appendix to vein vii. at base 

 (vein viii. ). This appendix fades out by disintegration in certain minor groups. It is 

 also shared by the more specialised and larger groups of the moths. The butterflies are 

 therefore probably dichotomous, and I expect the phylogeny of the Papilionides is to be 

 sought for in the Tineides. The two groups of diurnals have attained their character as 

 day fliers by different routes. 



My criticism of Dr Jordan's investigations is, that, valuable as they are as a con- 

 tribution to the morphology of the feelers, they are valueless for taxonomy and phylo- 

 geny. I do not regard the specialisations of the veining, which takes a parallel direction 

 so far as concerns the radius and its branches in the Lycaenidae and Pieridae, as any 

 warrant for the association of these families. And I must naturally object to having my 

 classification of the butterflies into two major groups, viz., Papilionides and Hesperiades, 

 criticised upon the basis of coincidences in specialisation of certain organs common to 

 both groups. The Papilionides possess an important part of an organ which the other 

 butterflies want. Specialisations come in afterwards, as when I show that the Parnas- 

 sians are more specialised than the Swallowtails, and that therefore we should com- 

 mence our lists with Apollo and kindred butterflies. A. Radcliffe Grote. 



Roemer Museum, Hildesheim, 7th November 1898.- 



IMPORTANT NOTICE 



After this number Natural Science will be published by- 

 Mr YOUNG J. PENTLAND, 



11 Teviot Place, EDINBURGH, 



AND 



38 West Smithfield, LONDON, E.C. 



Communications for Editor and Publisher should be sent to 11 Teviot 

 Place, Edinburgh. 



London parcels may be sent to 38 West Smithfield. 



