WHAT AKE THE TEGUMEN AND VALV.E ? 83 



homologous to that in the Papilionine. 1 believe Gosse to have been 

 absolutely right in this, I have considerable acquaintance with these 

 organs in both families and I agree entirely with his identification. 

 The term Valcae or valves must therefore be restricted to this special 

 part in the Pa/iilioniilae, and in a section of the Pieridae, for the 

 Valva or valve is not the same organ as the Harpaijo of White. 



After describing the valves Gosse goes on to describe another organ 

 lying within the valve, which he designates as the Harpe (Gr. dp-n-q, a 

 grappling iron), and he stated that he considered he was justified in 

 so doing because the valve and the harpe united represented Dr. 

 White's liarpaijo in other Rhopalocera. I would remind my readers 

 that Gosse was a very accurate and exact observer, that he was making 

 these designations with full knowledge of what had already been done, 

 and that he was writing with the intention of Revision in these organs. 



He then described the Harpe, thinking that the valve with the 

 harpe were homologues of White's Harpai/o. In 1911 my friend Dr. 

 McDunnough pointed out that he did not consider Gosse was correct 

 in this conclusion, as he thought the Harpago was a simple valve 

 rather than a fusion of harpe and valve (Ent. Xen-f;, 1911, p. 187). I 

 quite agree with Dr. McDunnough in considering that the harpago is 

 not a fusion of the harpe and valve, but I am afraid I strongly disagree 

 with the supposition that the harpago is a simple valve. I am con- 

 vinced, in my own mind, that the harpago is a more fully developed 

 harpe, and that the term Harpai/o must stand, also that the term 

 Valca must stand, and further, I see no reason why Harpe should not 

 remain in usage also, for it is so different in the Fapilionidae from the 

 ordinary Harpago that it would be a mistake to sink it. 



To prove this point it is necessary for me to make some reference 

 to these organs in the Fapilionidae. Some years ago I was uncertain 

 of some of Gosse's points ; it was necessary, therefore, to prepare 

 various " mounts " to enable me to clear them up, and I made fresh 

 microscopic slides in different positions, and some of the profile slides 

 I prepared by carefully lifting off" one valve and mounting the remains ; 

 this method left behind all the organs except the one valve with most, 

 but not all, of the harpe adhering to it. This proved to me what 1 

 had already observed, viz., that the harpe is a continuous part of the 

 whole armature, but that the valve (being possibly in this family a later 

 development) would come right away, leaving merely a slight tearing 

 of the exterior chitin, whereas the Harpe was fractured at a point, 

 about a fifth within the valve, the broken portion being quite continu- 

 ous with the basal part of the Cinyula. I prepared several species in 

 this way and all proved this one point, that the valve would come 

 right ofi", leaving merely a rough abrasion on the exterior, but that 

 the harpe would be fractured from the main internal structure; in one 

 case, /', oniu'nu>i, there is a very shallow external sort of socket at the 

 base of the cingula, wherein the basal extremity of the valve fitted and 

 from which it has come away with the slightest abrasion, but the 

 harpe is broken oft" (a definite fracture) from the structural stem. This 

 shows that the valve is wholly external, and, I think, is cleai- evidence 

 of a later development than the harpe, which is a continuous part of 

 the skeleton, if 1 may use the expression. 



The name valve, being first given to P. hransicae, it is advisable to 

 see whether there is any homology between these organs in the two 



