50 THE entomologist's record. 



" disease " in relation to this subject, I do so in the widest sense, and 

 look upon failure to produce scales and scale pigment equally with 

 ill-developed wing (membranous) structure, as the result of the insect's 

 inability to carry out its normal functions of development. I have 

 discussed the matter at some length in the Introduction to vol. ii. of 

 The British NoctucB and their Varieties, and shall be very pleased if 

 Mr. Merrifield has any further suggestions to offer on the subject. — Ed.] 



Retarded development of wings in Spilosoma mendica. — I have 

 another record of retarded development of wings, which beats that of 

 Smerinthtis tilice {Enf. Rec, vol. ii., p. 54). A female specimen of 

 6". nmidica emerged (by forcing) at 10.30 a.m., on April 9th, and no 

 expansion took place until 12.30 p.m., on April nth, when I saw it 

 with its wings over its back, and it finally expanded into a perfect 

 specimen. This leaves 50 hours between emergence and expansion. I 

 may add that it was the only specimen of this species bred within several 

 days of this date, the majority having emerged during March, and 

 any mistake as to its identity, was therefore impossible. — A. U. Battley, 

 28, Amhurst Park, N. 



Classification by Neuration. — At the London Entomological 

 Society's meeting of February loth, Mr. Meyrick read part of a paper 

 (intended, I suppose, for the Transactions) on the "Classification of the 

 Geometrina by Neuration." He commenced by noting certain altera- 

 tions of synonymy. If our synonymy is to undergo another alteration 

 at the hands of Mr. Meyrick, it will, I am afraid, want revising back 

 again very shortly ; but it is not of this that I wish to speak. It is of 

 the absolute worthlessness of Mr. Meyrick's scheme of classification, 

 and to raise my voice against the Society publishing work of this kind, 

 which goes out with the stamp and authority of the Society on its face. 

 Some eighteen months ago a paper was printed in the Transactions on 

 the " Classification of the Pyralidina," than which nothing could have 

 been more disastrous. The work was based entirely on superficial 

 characters, which had to be defined with logical accuracy, and then 

 anything which satisfied these arbitrary conditions was put into a genus. 1 

 The result was not far to seek. Species whose larvoe are as far apart 

 as possible, as proved by their earlier stages, are lumped together 

 because they have these characters in common, species so closely allied 

 that their larvae are almost indistinguishable are widely separated, and 

 even synonyms for the same species get placed in different genera. 

 Nothing so utterly useless since Mr, Butler published his paper " On 

 the genus Acronycta," at least relating to British entomology, has been 

 brought out by the Society, although a few very unsatisfactory papers 

 have found their way into the volumes enriched by the clever work of 

 Poulton and others. But Mr. Meyrick's work stands self-condemned. 

 He commenced by stating that " Tephrosia biundularia had seven dis- 

 tinct types of neuration." That is all ! and this is the basis on which 

 our moths are to be classified by those who get them up in collections 

 and have never studied their earlier stages. Fancy a classification of 

 Vertebrata on the same lines ! The neuration of many species varies 



^ This was, I know, supported by Prof. Fernald, but American Lepidopterists are 

 much in the condition of our Neuropterists, Dipterists, etc. They know perhaps 

 less than one per cent, of the larvx> of their species, and the so-called scientists in 

 America are gcncrnlly museum species-namers — not biologists. 



