552 A CENTURY OF PROGRESS IN THE NATURAL SCIENCES 



geography, whose views were partly based on what they saw of the butterflies. 

 But much work has been invalidated by being based on false ideas of rela- 

 tionship. The most pretentious publication, Pagenstecher's Geographische Ver- 

 breitung der Schmetterlinge (1909) must be used with great caution, since at 

 that time it was not yet possible in many cases to distinguish between relation- 

 ship and parallelism, and current classifications were arbitrary systems for con- 

 venience in many instances in which he thought true relationship was intended. 

 Schroeder's Handhuch (1929) also has a long chapter on zoogeography, based 

 to a great extent on the Lepidoptera, but here again species lists are often pre- 

 sented without understanding. On a smaller scale we have studies of the spread 

 of an immigrant in a new territory, such as Scudder's work on Pieris rapae 

 {Butterjiies of Eastern North America, p. 1175, Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist., 

 4:1), and the more recent governmental studies of the spread of the gypsy moth 

 and the European corn borer (the last-named work very superficial). In Europe 

 we have more detailed studies, based on the fuller data available, like Verity's 

 papers on the significance of geographical variation, cited above, and Bryan 

 Beirne's Origin and History of the British Fauna (1952). 



Biology and Early Stages 



Our story started with life histories: Aristotle's cabbage worm and silkworm, 

 then Merian's one hundred fifty life histories from central Europe, and a some- 

 what smaller number from Surinam. For the European fauna a large number 

 of naturalists made contributions to the Lepidoptera; but for the mere record 

 of the appearance of the caterpillars, Hiibner's Geschichte marks a high point, 

 not touched before or since. After Hiibner, the steady flow of contributions to 

 life history continued, being integrated by Hofmann and again in Spuler's 

 Schmetterlinge Europas, which shows plain signs of its background — Hiibner, 

 Hofmann, and post-Hofmann. For the more restricted fauna of the British 

 Islands, manuals have come out every decade of the century, but the works of 

 Stainton, Buckler, and Tutt must be mentioned. 



In America the early work of Abbot in Greorgia was mentioned earlier. Later, 

 about 1900, there was great amateur activity in the northeast, best represented 

 by the three popular works of that time, (Ballard, Eliot and Soule, Dickerson), 

 already mentioned. For structure of early stages we have Fracker on the larva 

 and Miss Mosher on the pupa, published by the LTniversity of Illinois in 1915 and 

 1916, respectively — studies which are a chief foundation of our modern classi- 

 fication — and also later papers by Miss Mosher on the Sphingidae, Saturnioidea, 

 Notodontidae, and Geometridae. Finally, we have Peterson's Larvae of Insects, 

 of which part 1 (1948) deals chiefiy with the Lepidoptera. 



In the foreign field data are still more scattered, but for some regions we 

 have unified blocks of material: Matsumura's 6000 Insects (1931) and the Nip- 

 pon Konshu Zukan (1932), Lepidoptera by Esaki and others, for Japan; Bur- 

 meister's Description Physique de la Repuhlique Argentine (1878) or the Lepi- 

 doptera parts of the Fauna of British India (1892-1947, and far from finished), 

 especially the revised volumes on the Papilionidae, Pieridae, Nymphalidae, s.l., 

 except Nymphalinae, and Sphingidae. 



For biology in the more restricted sense, the literature is so extremely scat- 



