124 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



term Basilarchia should be retained. On the other hand I think Mr. 

 Scudder's divisions of Argynnis and Lycaena are not vaHd, as now 

 shown by Prof. Peabody and others. I hope Mr. Scudder will not 

 retain these, and also that he will be guided by Dr. Speyer's classifica- 

 tion of the Hespcridae. These latter afford good, apparent, readily 

 understood generic characters as we understand these in the moths, and 

 there is nothing gained by making too many genera out of them on 

 " measurements." These latter are now proved to be illusory, and 

 should not be again brought forward. As to the general arrangement of 

 the families, the arrangement of Meigen and others, commencing with 

 the groups in which the front legs are useless for walking, and which are 

 taken out of the ambulatory series, has an approved philosophic basis. It is 

 warranted under Prof. Dana's theory of cephalization. Mr. Scudder's 

 paper on the structure of Papilio in the Transactions of the American 

 Entomological Society, has not been answered. I think the caterpillars 

 of Papilio are of a lower type than those of the rest of the true butterflies, 

 and that there are no reasons for placing the " Swallow Tails " at the 

 head of the rest except that they are large and showy insects. The 

 structure of the feet is evidently of importance no less than the method 

 of pupation, and this is recognized consistently in Mr. Scudder's arrange- 

 ment. There is certainly no system in commencing with the groups with 

 six walking legs, then following with those of four, and winding up again 

 with those with six. The moths have generally six walking legs, and the 

 abortive front pair may be consistently regarded as a later phase. I have 

 great confidence in Mr. Edwapds's remarks as to genera, that these can be 

 traced in all stages from the egg upwards, and in this respect it would be 

 well if Mr. Scudder, for the sake of reason, which, as Zschokke says, is 

 the " daylight of the mind," would abate from hair-splitting. But I have 

 great regard for Mr. Scudder's general appreciation of classificatory 

 characters and those which point to higher or lower rank and which 

 determine the confines of large groups, and on this head it would be well 

 if Mr. Edwards relented from his present views. There is then, to my 

 mind, a possible agreement between the two authorities, and that such 

 an agreement would be of great value cannot be doubted. Where there 

 is any reasonable principle involved, I advise neither to give way. 

 Time, Mr. Strecker's friend, must level such differences by throwing more 

 light on the subject. But much that divides the two scientists lies in the 



