1898.] GROTE — SPECIALIZATIONS OF LEPIDOPTEROUS WING. 35 



no proper judgment could, in my opinion, be formed upon it, and 

 this would perhaps account in part for the seemingly extraordinarily 

 unnatural sequences adopted by him. 



The coincidence between the neuration of Pontia daplidice and 

 that of Alancipium brassicce is so great, that I am at a loss to give 

 good characters of distinction. But showing, as I do, that the 

 three-branched character of the Pierid primary wing is attained 

 upon obviously distinct lines (^. g,, Euremini), this coincidence 

 will not of itself determine the phylogeny. The shape of the wings 

 and the pattern of ornamentation of Pontia are both Anthocharid. 

 It is not conceivable how either could have been derived from 

 Pieris and the ^' typical Whites." We should have to suppose that 

 the four-branched Pieris threw off the three-branched Mancipium 

 and also the three-branched Pontia ; an inference which, consider- 

 ing the want of any near resemblance in the shape and pattern of 

 the wings between the two descendants, or between one of these 

 (Pontia) and the supposed parent stem, must be set down as unten- 

 able. More than this, we have in Pontia a similar secondary 

 sexual character in the shape and extent of the wings to that we 

 find in the Anthocharini, no trace of which is evident in Pieris or 

 Mancipium. This character has evidently been retained by Pontia, 

 through an ancestry of which I find one existing representative form, 

 extending back to the five-branched representative of a remote 

 phase which is brought before us now in Anthocharis and Euchloe. 

 I believe that these facts show, that the phylogenetic position here- 

 tofore assigned to Pontia, is a discordant one and should be cor- 

 rected. We may now leave Pontia and look over the more 

 generalized and the typical Anthocharini with their five-branched 

 radius. 



Mr. Scudder {Historical Sketch, 113) says, regarding the use of 

 the ofeneric term Anthocharis : '* As Euchloe must be used for the 

 European species, getiutia should be considered the type of this 

 genus." This would seem to imply that all the European species 

 were generically distinct from all the American and that the latter 

 should alone be referred to Anthocharis. I do not agree with this 

 statement at all, and I can show grounds for referring American 

 species, with orange blotch in the male, to Euchloe, and for con- 

 sidering that the white species of both continents are slightly more 

 specialized and might be kept under the separate title of Antho- 

 charis. I regret not to have genutia to examine and I use Antho- 



