214 TiiK kntomologist's kecord. 



" Does it belong to the Rhopalocera ?" This question Renter answers 

 (in the same sense) in the affirmative, and Butler in the negative. 

 It appears to me that the trouble lies with the Boisduvalian categories, 

 Ehopalocera and Heteroccra, abstractions evidently not attended to by 

 nature. I'seudopontia has unclubbed antennae, and the secondaries 

 have three internal veins, hence the insect will not fit the definition 

 of the Ehopalocera ; it is, therefore, according to Butler, not a 

 "butterfly," but a " moth." In other words, it is consigned to that 

 common receptacle, the incongruous nature of which is expressed by 

 its title, the Heterocera. Against the employment of these two 

 scientific titles I have had a long and up-hill fight. Perhaps 

 Psendopontia may help to show that they have no standing. 



According to 8cudder, the correct title of this butterfly is 

 Go>wphlebia (Generic Names, 181), and I thus call the insect by this 

 name, and the family, of which it is the type, Gonophlehiadae. 



The wings of this odd African lepidopterous insect are transparent, 

 whitish, without markings, and are curiously round in shape. Here 

 is evidently the influence of mimicry, and Gonopklehia possibly copies 

 the colourless petals of some blossom which it frequents ; at any rate, 

 its unusual form has probably been acquired for the purpose of self- 

 protection. When we compare it with the long-winged Leptidia 

 siuapis, we find that the two oppositely shaped types of wing are 

 produced witli a nearly identical number of nervures. But whereas 

 in Tj. siuapis they are straight, in Gonophlehia paradoxa they are 

 curiously bent, in order to produce the circular form of wing. This 

 bending is chiefly shown by the radial veins of the primaries, which are 

 elbowed in an upward curve near their point of origin. These are 

 veins IIIj and III.^. Next, vein Vj is bent downwards in an opposite 

 direction. Thus the wing is stretched upwards and downwards by 

 the course of these two supports, pulling it, we may say, in two 

 directions. On the secondaries, the radius, vein III, is bent upwards 

 nearly at right angles, fusing with II ; thence, descending gently, it 

 reaches the external margin below the apex. Again, vein V.^ is corres- 

 pondingly bent in an opposite direction, and thus the circular form 

 of the wings is mainly attained, while all the veins assist this result 

 by being separated widely, thus stretching, upwards and downwards, 

 the integument. On the secondaries, vein IX is retained, and this is 

 a generalisation no doubt held over by the mechanical necessities of 

 the case. That the presence of this vein is not an obstacle to our 

 considering Gonophlebia a "butterfly " may be seen by the following 

 table : 



Secondaries with one internal vein : PABNASsi-PAPiLioNiDa:. 



Secondaries with two internal veins : Piebi-Nyjiphalid^, Lyc^ni-Hespeeiad^e. 



Secondaries with three internal veins : Gonophlebiad^. 



It is from a study of the neuration of the primaries that I have 

 come to the conclusion that Gonophlehia is a probable specialised 

 survival, reaching back to the main Pierid stem of the diurnal 

 Lepidoptera. It is neither, strictly speaking, a " butterfly " nor a 

 "moth," neither Rhopalocerous nor Heterocerous, according to received 

 definitions. On primaries the radial branches have submitted to a 

 reduction, as in the Pieridae (i.e., Pontia, Xathalis), the radius is 

 only 3-veined ; the terminal vein we must represent by the formula 

 III, 3 + 4 + 5, This is a secondary specialisation ; one which we 



