182 ' [August, 



altogether abnormal, no other Lepidoptera showing a trace of it, ani 

 in my estimation a far moi'e imj)ortant systematic character than t 

 two which the author lays stress on. 



It appears to me, then, that this specimen can only be regarde 

 as Lepidopterons on the theory that it is a member of an entirely u 

 known line of development of that Order, which had attained a hig" 

 degree of specialisation at a period far anterior to the earliest certainl 

 Lepidopterons insect known, itself a lowly organised form; this cannoi 

 be termed impossible, but it involves a very great improbability. Th 

 altei'native view that the resemblances are accidental and the insect not 

 Lepidopterons seems to me, on the whole, less improbable. 



I cannot venture to express any positive opinion on its possible 

 relation to other Orders, but I suggest that there are some points of 

 resemblance to the Hemijptera-Homoptera, some species of which have 

 a semi-Lepidopterous facies. The corneous margin of wing, the 

 central cell (usually, it is true, much larger), and approximate number 

 of veins rising from it, and even the curious dark banding of the 

 membrane alongside the veins can all be parallelled in this gi'oup, 

 which, moreover, is already known to have been in existence since the 

 Carboniferous period. Further evidence may soon be available to 

 assist comprehension, for it appears that the collection described in the 

 paper quoted is only the first-fruits of a quantity of material of 

 similar character wdiich has been discovered, and the results of the in- 

 vestigation of this promise to be of the highest importance. 



July 18i^, 1916. 



\ 



Mr. Druce's Criticisms, and an Appeal. — May I venture to hope that 

 entomologists in general will not be disturbed unduly by Mr. H. H. Druce's 

 resurrection of those two unfortunate papers on Bornean Rhopalocera by Pryer 

 and Cator, and Bartlett ? As Mr. Druce has told us, the first was pvablished in 

 the " British North Borneo Herald " of 1894, and the other in the " Sarawak 

 Gazette " of 1896. The late Mr, Shelford buried them with all due publicity 

 and decency in his paper of 1904, and they have been allowed to sleep on un- 

 distvirbed for the last twelve years, save for an occasional reference given to 

 them in " Lepidoptera Indica " or in my own papers. Finally, Dr. Sharp, in a 

 recent letter, which Mr. Druce publishes, administers the coup de grace : " In 

 ' Zool. Eec, 1894, p. 248, Pryer and Gator's list of Bornean butterflies is men- 

 tioned, bvit I did not accept the new species." Most entomologists wovild be 

 satisfied to accept the judgment of such a long-experienced and distinguished 

 authority as Dr. Sharp (even if Mr. Shelford had not taken the troiible to give 

 his reasons for disregarding these papers in 1904) and treat these papers as 

 non-existent. 



