22 NATUBAL SCIENCE [January 



two groups, of all Lepidoptera, it might be conceded to be a mark of 

 affinity, but since this is not the case it may either be continuous in 

 the two groups from a remote ancestry, before either Papilio or 

 Hes'peria were thrown ofif, or it has been independently acquired. 

 Since it is not a relatively primary character it affords no conclusive 

 argument for the sequence adopted by Mr Scudder. Again : " The 

 inner border of the hind wing is folded longitudinally just as it 

 always is in the ' Skippers ' and rarely in other butterflies." This is 

 a secondary character and the same sort of argument would bring 

 Pamassius and FiOtliachildic together, for both have the inner 

 margin of the hind wings hollowed out, and here vein VIII ha& 

 disappeared in both instances. In the Lepidoptera, quite generally, 

 the inner border of the hind wing becomes variously specialised. 

 " But again," says Mr Scudder, " the Swallowtails are universally con- 

 ceded to be so closely allied to the Pierids, that they are invariabh' 

 placed next them ; consequently, if the Swallowtails are placed 

 highest in the scale, the Pierids must go with them ; nobody ques- 

 tions this ; yet the Pierids possess not a single one of the character- 

 istics by which a high rank is claimed for the Swallowtails. Com- 

 mentary upon this is needless." Now, I believe myself that com- 

 mentary upon this criticism of Mr Scudder's is ' needless.' The 

 whole remark is based upon the existence of affinities between the 

 ' Swallowtails ' and the Pierids, which I decidedly question, and 

 loses its point. The resemblances with the Pierids lie in the parallel 

 secondary movements of the movable veins. The phylogeny of the 

 two groups is most clearly distinct. Fapilio is not so much a ' low ' 

 or ' high,' as a peculiar butterfly. The conclusion Mr Scudder comes 

 to with regard to the osmateria of Papilio is, that because a similar 

 character is developed in Gerura, which is a moth, it must indicate 

 low rank in the butterfly. But this is a character of secondar}' 

 larval adaptation, in which Cerura far outstrips Papilio, and by the 

 same token shows the inequality of specialisation, and that tliis 

 character in the larva, being secondary and adaptive, cannot directly 

 affect the imago. It may seem extraordinary to Mr Scudder that 

 a moth should be in any point ' ahead ' of a butterfly, but such 

 nevertheless is the fact. Mr Scudder's view of the case arises from 

 the fundamental error that there is a linear succession in ' rank,' 

 which, of course, precludes the idea that in any character a moth 

 could outstrip a butterfly. Again, when we admit, with Mr Scudder, 

 that the straight ventral surface of the abdomen in the pupa of the 

 Suspensi is retained over from the Succincti, it does not necessarily 

 indicate that the Suspensi outrank the Succincti, but it makes it 

 probable that the brush-footed butterflies had their origin in the 

 main stem of the six-footed butterflies after the waist-tied habit had 

 been acquired. The Pierid Succincti have gone their own way after 



