THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 205 



THE CLASSIFICATION OF OUR BUTTERFLIES. 



BY A, R. GROTE, A. M., BREMEN, GERMANY. 



At different times, in making notes for a general list of our Lepidop- 

 tera, I have taken up the arrangement of our butterflies, and, although 

 such a list must now be undertaken by some one else, I think it worth 

 while to set down the conclusions to which I had come. 



For myself, I have preferred to consider all the true butterflies as more 

 nearly related to each other than to the Hesperidce and Paleohesperidce. 

 In other words, the latter seem the equivalent, structurally speaking, of the 

 other butterflies. The characters by which modern "families" are recog- 

 nized are unequal, and perhaps these groups are really of no more than 

 sub-family value. But, granting these groups to be as they are now held, 

 families, the sequence, with the Papilionid(Z at the head, seems less 

 reasonable than that which commences with the Nymphalidce, or the so- 

 called "four-footed" butterflies. And this on general grounds. For it 

 is a clear departure from the usually six-footed type, that the anterior pair 

 should be shortened and rendered more or less useless for walking pur- 

 poses. It is probably not to be assumed that the families evolved from 

 each other, but evolution was simultaneous and unequal. The character 

 of the shortening of the fore-feet appears in a less degree in other families 

 of butterflies, and probably exists as a tendency latent in the whole group. 

 The fore-feet become gradually disused in walking, and this disuse is 

 followed by a modification of structure, We are tied to a linear series in 

 our catalogues and clas sifications, and the real descent and sequence in 

 time of our butterflies can never be made out and never displayed in our 

 artificial arrangements. We are conditioned by our own physical struc- 

 ture. Our appreciation of what surrounds us is limited by the imperfec- 

 tion of our senses. We cannot see evolution, and the actual progression 

 of growth escapes us. Only by reasoning do we recognize the doctrine 

 of descent. It is easier for us to construct a genealogical tree than to 

 prove its correctness beyond reasonable doubt. 



Undoubtedly such drawings assist our comprehension of the possible 

 modus operandi, but the artist must be exceedingly well up before he thus 

 gives the reins to his imagination. In the best case they -are not facts, 

 and must not be accepted as such ; they are, it may be, ladders for the 

 mind, which we may cHmb if we will, to find at the top perhaps as imaginary 



