fttE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 55 



" A careful comparison of a considerable series shows that there is no 

 difference whatever in the genital armour of Proserpina and Ursula.^' 

 We should like to have heard whether there is any difference between the 

 armour of Arthemis and Ursula. The form Proserpina is undeniably 

 related to Arthemis, only supposably to Ursula. If the genitalia, as evi- 

 dence of specific value, are worth anything, then there should be no dif- 

 ferences whatever between Arthemis and Proserpina. Therefore, if these 

 organs in Proserpina are like Ursula, as Mr. Scudder tells us, in Arthemis 

 they must also be like Ursula. But it is implied in the foregoing statement 

 that this is not the case, but that Arthemis is unlike both Proserpina and 

 Ursula. The preparatory stages tell a very different story, and I prefer 

 to believe their testimony rather than that of the other.* 



Why any where Arthemis has a co-form, or how such form has come 

 to be, is not explainable, any more than why Papilio Tumus has a black 

 female as well as a yellow one. The fact is all we know. From the 

 Northern States to the Arctic Circle, in just the territory occupied by 



*Are the genitalia valuable in determining species ? I doubt it much. We do not 

 need to examine them to prove that two species plainly distinct in the imago are really 

 so as Papilios Tumus and Philenor. It is when the imagos are puzzling that help 

 from any quarter would be welcomed ; as in case of the Graptas C album, Comma, 

 Satyrus zv\A Faunus . Will they help us here? Looking at Mr. Scudder's plates, I 

 see that what I consider natural genera, as Colias, Ar^^ymtis, Limenitis, etc., have each 

 their own type of these organs. It is not to be supposed that they are cast in moulds like 

 so many iron pots and knowing that every other organ varies, we have the right to 

 believe that the genitalia vary also. How much is the question. In the plates the 

 figures are not drawn to an uniform scale and the organs are differently exposed, probably 

 drawn as they had dried. Some seem to have shrunk in the drying, others perhaps are 

 done from green subjects, and are full and plump But taking them as they stand : on 

 pi. 33 all these species of Limenitts seem to be essentially alike, and I apprehend that 

 the variation between them is no greater than would be found between individuals of 

 each. So the three Argynnids, Atlantis, Cyhele and Aphrodite are essentially alike. 

 Grapta Progne cannot be distinguished from G. Comma, though they belong to different 

 sub-groups, while G. Faunus differs conspicuously from Co7uvia, though these two belong 

 to the same sub-group, and can be but one remove from a common ancestor. On pi. 

 34 Phyciodes Tharos and Batesii are alike ; and quite a lot of Theclas, together with 

 Incisalis Niphon and Irus, seem all alike and nowhere specifically different. On pi. 

 35, the three Colias, Inferior, Philodice and Eurythetue, are as like as three marrowfats. 

 My friends why are things thus ? 



If the test is not infallible it is not to be trusted. If it fails anywhere it may fail 

 often. Now. on page 329, under the head of G9-apta Interrogationis. we read these 

 words: 'The two forms (of this species, to wit, Fabricii and Umbrosa) differ so 

 greatly and so constancy from each other, not only in the colouring but in the form of 

 the wings, and even in the abdominal appendages (the genitalia), that they have been con- 

 sidered distinct species ".' That is, if they had not, by breeding from the egg, been proved 

 to be one species by the evidence of the genitalia they would be considered as two ! It 

 seems to me this settles at once and for all the value of these organs as tests of species. 

 The study of them may amuse an idle hour, the drawings of them are very pretty, but 

 that they are of any value so far as concerns closely related species does not appear. 



