30 ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



Lasiocampidae are now ranked as a family. He also shows 

 that genera based on larval and imaginal characters more 

 nearly coincide in their relation to each other than higher 

 groups so founded. The following passage - seems especially 

 pertinent to the case in hand: i4 In families there is again an 

 increase of irregularity. Although larval and imaginal families 

 generally agree, there are so many exceptions that the groups 

 would be smaller if they were based exclusively on the larval 

 structure than if founded on the imagines (Nymphalidae, Bom- 

 bycidae)." "If we turn to the groups of families we find a 

 considerably increased incongruence ; complete agreement is here 

 again rather the exception ; and it further happens in these cases 

 that it is always the larvae which, to a certain extent, remain at a 

 lower grade, and which form well defined families, but these can 

 seldom be associated into groups of a higher order, having a com 

 mon character, as in the case of the imagines (Rhopolocera)." 

 The numerous instances further sited by Dr. Weismann in dif 

 ferent orders further confirm this view, whose truth must be 

 apparent. Now the adultsof all the Chry some! ina feed upon foli 

 age externally, but the larvae are much more variable in their 

 habits, far more distinct in structure, and thus, as might be ex 

 pected, show more clearly their relationships. As an example, 

 LeConte and Horn have classed the two tribes, Hispini and Cas- 

 sidini, as Cryptosomes upon their having " front inflexed, mouth 

 inferior." If, as they state, the larvae of both these tribes had the 

 habit of covering themselves with excrement, their relationship 

 would seem more clear, but such is not the case. The two larvae 

 are very dissimilar, the latter approaching the Erotylidae and 

 Coccinellidae, while the former resemble those of the Ceram- 

 bycidae, between which there is certainly no very great similarity. 

 This is the most striking instance in which the classification of 

 the larvae differs from that of the adults, though others are 

 numerous. Inasmuch as the characters used to separate many 

 groups of the Chrysomelina are confessedly unsatisfactory, it 

 would seem that the relationships so clearly exhibited between 

 the different groups of larvae may be of considerable value in 

 securing a natural classification, or, if that be not possible, at 

 least add to our knowledge of the phylogeny of this large group 

 of beetles. 



This paper excited much interest, and was discussed by several of 

 the members present. Dr. Gill said that one of the families should 

 be called Cassididae, instead of Cassidae,* this being the proper 

 family name derived from the genus Cassida ; there was also a 

 family of Gasteropod Molluscs called Cassidae. He asked if the 



*This correction has been made in the body of the article. Publication 

 Committee. 



