146 THE entomologist's record. 



atheroma into one gronp. By this character of the retained vein viii 

 on secondaries, Hemileuca proves itself a generalised Saturnian, and, 

 equally, CUJiemnia a generalised Automerid. AuUdhitu and A<iUa 

 have both apparently been throvrn off" from the main Citheronian stem 

 before the absorption of iv by the radius took place. In this respect 

 Cithcninia had subsequently independently advanced, while retaining 

 vein viii of the secondaries which Aylia and Automcris have alike lost, 

 just as the Parnassi-Papilionidffi have lost the same vein as compared 

 with all the other butterflies. Afilin cannot, from my point of view, 

 be looked upon as a generalised Saturnian. 



In conclusion, I do not challenge the entire value of larval cha- 

 racters in classification. I believe it possible that the value of the 

 al)sence or presence of the single dorsal tubercle on the 9th segment has 

 Ijeen over-estimated by Dr. Dyar, as this seems to be the obstacle to an 

 agTeement. I believe also that this discusssion, warmly conducted 

 upon both sides, may ultimately lead to a gain in our comprehension 

 of the value of structural characters, and is not to be regretted. I take 

 it for granted that a classification of Lepidoptera is warranted upon 

 features of the imago alone, and this from the necessities of the case, 

 and that where a clear contradiction, such as I have tried to estab- 

 lish here, occurs, it is the larval rather than the imaginal characters 

 which need re-examination and fresh study. Of the value of Dr. Dyar's 

 discoveries as to the position of the larval tubercles in defining the 

 limits of the superfamily groups, I have elsewhere expressed my full 

 a^jpreciation ; but I do not believe that the absence or presence of a 

 larval tubercle can outweigh the evidence which it appears to me is 

 offered by the wings of the Saturniades. No gTcater mistake can be 

 made, I believe, than to classify Hemileuca and Automeru in one 

 " family," as is done by Comstock and Dyar. That this mistake was 

 originally committed by me in 1866, makes me glad that I have lived 

 to recognise it as such and tried to redress it. 



I am sorry that Dr. Dyar does not see the contradiction ■w'hich I 

 have been at some pains to demonstrate. To me it is so manifest, that 

 I do not hesitate to conclude that it is fatal to one or the other of the 

 two systems of classification. I am encouraged to believe that I am 

 right by the fact that the female antennse (which should be preferred 

 as a basis to the male organs) in A(ilia are Citheronian in character 

 and also Automerid, while the antennae in Hemileuca are of the Satm'- 

 nian type. Other characters, such as coloration, agree or are indifferent. 

 It is perhaps beside the question of the present controversy that Dr. 

 Packard also claims the affinity of Aijlia to Citlieronia, and that I 

 can fall back on Hiibner to sustain the relationship of Hemileuca to 

 Saturnia, under which latter genus the type is recorded in the 

 " Verzeichniss." 



OLEOPTERA. 



Coleoptera of Richmond Park. 



By Professor T. HUDSON BEARE, B.Sc, F.E.S. 



Richmond Park has long been noted for the many interesting 

 captures made in it in years gone by, but the gradual encroachment 

 of bricks and mortar, which have effaced so many of the localities in 



