88 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



The Nymphalidse begin to branch at an inch and a-quarter above the 

 Papiho, first coming the Libytheinje ; then at another inch the Nympha- 

 linae, and above them the Satyrinae, at two and a-half inches. This two 

 and a-half inches " indicates the relative perfection " of the Satyrinse over 

 the rest of the Nymphalidse. The " perfection " of the Satyrinse to 

 the Papilionid?e is as 6.5 is to i. Truly a parlous elevation for the giddy 

 Semidea and its peers ! Anyone can draw a diagram, and if I were to 

 use the one made by Mr. Scudder, I should put the Satyrinae at the first 

 branch above the Skippers, and the Papilioninse at the top, and the pro- 

 portion of perfection would be for the latter as 6,5 to i of the other. 

 Mr, Scudder assures us that all the Suspensi have been Succincti, and 

 that the evidence " is clear and striking," but his only witness to the fact 

 is discredited. As the moths, in general, have no attachment at all, 

 if the moths are indicated by " the -common stock," it is not clear why 

 the Papilionidae were " perforce " obliged to assume the girdle and button 

 on leaving the main stem. The next stage to no attachment would seem 

 likely to be the single attachment, but whether that was perforce assumed 

 we have no means of knowing. It would also seem that the double 

 attachment is the widest departure from the condition of no attachment 

 at all, to be reached after the longest period of time, instead of the 

 shortest. That from no attachment a sudden leap should be made to a 

 double one and then come back to a single one, to culminate in none at 

 all, as it began, is an unreasonable proposition. To me it seems clear 

 that the condition of no attachment found in so many Satyrinse is closest 

 to the habits of the moths ; the single attachment or button comes next, 

 and the double attachment is the final outcome, "showing the perfection 

 of the highest members of the group," namely, the Papilionidae. Mr. 

 Scudder tells us, and this time we concede the reasonableness of the pro- 

 position, that "it is unphilosophical to accord high rank to any group 

 for a single characteristic, especially when, in nearly all its other pecu- 

 liarities, it evinces its low origin." — But., 250. On this ground the 

 scheme of elevating the Satyrinas very properly fails. 



But, while the diagram cited and the language sometimes used, would 

 give the impression that the author did not intend to make one family 

 evolve from another, other language certainly implies that this did take 

 place, that what are called the higher families all passed through the 

 stages of the lower, and in evolving sloughed off the lower class of habits 



