THE OANAUIA.N ENTOMOLOGIST. 9i 



birds, the thrushes, it is the PapiHonidst, and the Satyrina; must go to the 

 bottom, carrying the Nymphalimv with them. 



This matter of relative rank was discussed by Mr. Alfred Russell 

 Wallace, a man who "sees clear and thinks straight," in 1864, with a 

 treatment worthy his high standing as a naturalist, and the argument then 

 advanced has proved unanswerable. It is based on general principles, 

 and no special pleading from diseased legs, or papilhie, or pupjie will touch 

 it. Indeed, the conclusion reached by Mr. Wallace is so manifestly 

 proper that the test of any other theory on the matter must be whether or 

 no it arrives at the same conclusion. I am glad to be able to quote the 

 argument, as probably it is new to many of the readers of this magazine : 

 " Butterflies and moths are broadly characterised by their diurnal and 

 nocturnal habits respectively, and the Papilionida^, with their close allies, 

 the Pieridjv, are the most pre-eminently diurnal of butterflies, most of 

 them lovers of sunshine, and not presenting a single crepuscular species. 

 The great group of the Nymphalida', on the other hand, contains an 

 entire sub-family (Brassolidfe), and a number of genera, such as Thau- 

 mantis, Xeuxidia, Pavonia, etc., of crepuscular habits, while a large 

 proportion of the Satyridte and many of the Danaidne are shade-loving 

 butterflies." He then speaks of certain special characters in the Papi- 

 lionidifi, the most noticeable of which is the tentacle for self defence, in 

 second segment, which every one of the Papilionidtv is provided with : 

 " Such a structural addition to the organization of the family, subserving 

 an important function, seems to me alone sufficient to warrant us in con- 

 sidering the Papilionida? as the most highly developed of the whole 

 order." He speaks of the " tibial epiphysis," common to the Papi- 

 lionida3 and some Hesperidte, which was supposed by some authors to 

 show a direct affinity between the two groups.* These examples, I 

 think, demonstrate that we cannot settle the rank of a group by a con- 

 sideration of the degree in which certain characters resemble or differ 

 from those in what is admitted to be a lower group ; and they also show 

 that the highest group of a class may be more closely connected to one 

 of the lowest than some other groups which have developed laterally, and 

 diverged farthest from the parent type, but which yet, owing to want of 

 balance, or too great specialization in their structure, have never reached 



* Here is another character which could not have pas.secl into the PapihonidK from 

 the Hesperida;. Whether the " common stock '' had it no man can tell. 



