(• 376 ) 



supplied with well-developed pits. Tlie elavola has i)its upon the veutral surface, 

 eveu to tlie proximal segment in some forms, and there are other indications 

 that these forms express the highest autenual development among the butterflies." 

 And ou p. 48 Dr. Bodiae, speaking of the antennae of the whole order, concludes: 

 " In the determination of the relationsliips of the larger groups they do not furnish 

 as good guides as some of the larger organs, for while they are subject to great 

 variation, they do not afford a sufficiently large basis for \ariation to leave a stable 

 and constiint ground-work for the tracing out of the jiaths by which the specializa- 

 tions are brought about. . . . Owing to the difficulty of observation and the necessity 

 for especial jirejiaration, they atlbrd few characters which would be iiracticable for 

 recognition characters in ordinary systematic work, but for the more careful and 

 painstaking work of the study of the relationships they are of great value." 

 I (juite agree with Dr. Bodine that a comparative study of the histology of the 

 antennae, which he has specially in view, will furnish us with facts which will 

 throw light upon the relationship of the various groups of Butterflies and be of great 

 value to the classifier as well as the general biologist. But I fear the time is 

 very distant when a number of forms large enough to admit generalisations will 

 have been studied histologically. 



I have, therefore, abstained from giving histological details, confining ray notes 

 to the special structure of the joints, and the development of the sense-hairs and 

 scaling, which give, in contradiction of what Bodine says (see above), excellent 

 " recognition characters for ordinary systematic work," and enable us also to recognise 

 the lines of development which led to the various specialised antennae. A closer 

 comparison of the antennae of such Butterflies the position of which has been left 

 doubtful by many authors reveals at once to which family or group the species 

 belong. Thus there can be no doubt that St_i/x infer nalis, standing among the 

 Pieridue, has Eryciuid antennae, while Fxeut/opo/itia paradoxa, considered by 

 Butler and others to be a moth, has certainly Pierid antennae ; T'npilin zalmoxis, 

 treated by Staudinger, Schatz, Rippon, and others as an " Ornithoptera" on account 

 of its size, has the antennae not of the " Ornithoptera " type, but similar to those of 

 Papilio Tnerope, zenohia, and allies; Mesapia, described as a Papilionid, has Pierid 

 antennae; Alaena anutzotda, considered to be a small Acraeid until Schatz removed 

 the genus to the Lycaenidae. ou account of the develoi)ment of the anterior legs, has 

 the autennae very difterent from Acraeidae, tiiey being tyjiically Lycaenid; and so 

 on. It is quite impossible to mistake a Nymphalid antenna for that of a Lycaenid 

 or Pierid; [Abi/tlu'd, for instance, has Nymphalid antennae, and is in this respect 

 widely difterent from the En/cinidae to which it is linked by de Nic6ville and 

 others: and the antennae of these families are e(|ually well distinguished from those 

 of Papilionidae. 



I have endeavoured to find and iiave selected more easily traceable morpho- 

 logical characters, which mostly can be recognised with the help of an ordinary 

 pocket-lens : in fact, I have tried to bring together especially such details as 

 may be studied at dry individuals without removing the antennae from the 

 specimens. By restricting thus the field of observation iu respect to eadi single 

 antenna, and hence necessarily curtailing the number of distinguishing characters 

 to be found, 1 h;id a twofold aim : firstly, I hoped to interest iu these structural 

 characters the average Lepidopterist who naturally abhors all methods of research 

 by which his specimens get damaged, and to induce the monographer to pay due 

 attention to these organs, which will often give him valuable hints, where other 



