THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



11 



GEN ITALIC CLASSIFICATION. 



BY REV. GEO. D. HULST, bROOKLYN, N. Y. 



In the August number of the Canadian Entomologist,Vo1. 26, p. 215, 

 under the subject " An Omitted Phycitid," Mr. Grote speaks disparag- 

 ingly of my having established a subfamily upon differences in genitalia 

 structure, and says : " Messrs. Scudder and Burgess first gave us genitalia 

 species ; Lederer used the genitalia for subgeneric and generic divisions, 

 and latterly i- followed by Smith. Now comes Mr. Hulst, whose mission 

 seems to be to carry out the methods of other entomologists to extremes, 

 and give us genitalia subfamilies." 



So far as the above touches upon science I wish to speak. 



There are only two questions to answer in defense of the use of 

 genitalia characters in classification : the one,— Is the method scientific ? 

 and the other, — Is it warraned in the case under discussion ? 



First,— Is it scieniific ? The structure of the genital organs belongs to 

 those phases of structure ordinarily known as secondary sexual characters. 

 These all stand in the same category in classification. If one can be 

 used, another may be, and may be of equal value. But from the begm- 

 ning systematists have made abundant use of such of these characters as 

 were known to them, for not only subfamily, but even higher divisions. 

 For example, in the paper of Mr. Grote, referred to above, he says : " In 

 1878 I separated the Epipaschiifice {Epipaschice) from the Phycitmce 

 {Phycidce). The two groups I regard as divisions of the Pyralidte, equal 

 in value to the Crambinae and Galleriina;." These are one step higher 

 than the division I made based upon the genitalia. But Mr. Grote's 

 division was based upon a secondary sexual character, the presence of a 

 peculiar development on the basal segment of the male antennae. I con- 

 clude, therefore, it is scientific to make use of any secondary sexual 

 character. The use of the structure of the genitalia in classification is 

 therefore scientific. But to be of scientific importance, and properly 

 used, structural characters must be so permanent that their variations can 

 be relied upon. Is this true with the genitalia? It can, 1 think, be 

 affirmed, that no other secondary sexual character can be so confidently 

 relied upon. The universal testimony of those who have made a study of 

 genital structure is entirely in accord with this truth. One can with more 

 absolute certainty, where there is variation, tell an insect by the genital 

 structure, than by any other — often all other means. 



