SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 51 



sexually, and I know at least one species in which Ragonot places the 

 sexes of the same species in different genera. The Linn^ean system of 

 antennal classification is a distinct advance on this, although most of 

 the male NoctU/E with pectinated antennae were called Bombyces, and 

 their females were placed elsewhere, but once the fact was recognised 

 that this sexual variation occurred, there was less muddle than can 

 possibly exist under this system. The Neuropterists, Orthopterists, etc., 

 back up the neuration system. But why ? Because they know nothing 

 of the earlier stages of the insects they study, and are obliged to adopt 

 some superficial character to aid them in determination. This is quite 

 right. Names are a means to an end, and until the actual affinities are 

 known, some such arbitrary attempt at classification must be adopted, 

 whilst each successive potterer at an artificial scheme fondly hopes that 

 his will turn out to be a final and everlasting method of arrangement to 

 be adopted by everyone. But Lepidopterists are not in the condition 

 of the collectors of these orders. Some of us do know enough of the 

 earlier stages of our species to get a fair guide as to a natural classifi- 

 cation. Then what I ask is — why should we be bound down by the 

 opinions of so-called scientists who study collections and fondly hope 

 they are studying nature, who build up a house of cards of artificial 

 and arbitrary arrangements, and see the law of order peeping out to 

 their enlightened intelligences ? Let our museum people name speci- 

 mens and describe them. This is their natural work, because it is the 

 only one for which they have the slightest training ; but for goodness' 

 sake let our biologists classify. I incidentally remarked at the meeting 

 of the Society that the earlier stages should be used as the only means 

 of " natural classification," and was informed that the larvje also varied 

 according to their environment. What innocence ! Fancy a larva 

 varying structurally owing to environment. Did my informant imagine, 

 I wonder, that if I put a Noctua larva in water it would suddenly 

 develop gills ? I am sorry to write this in connection with a paper 

 written by a man whom I believe to be one of the hardest workers we 

 have, but I believe his efforts are entirely misdirected, and I must raise 

 my voice in opposition to the funds of the Society being spent on such 

 papers as these. If the paper be worth anything let Mr. Meyrick bring 

 it out at his own expense and on his own authority, but I do object, as 

 a Fellow of the Entomological Society, that these papers should go 

 forth, with the approval of the Entomological Society of London stamped 

 on the face of them. I do not suppose for one moment that the views 

 of a Fellow outside the Council will weigh with some of the members 

 of the Council who have acted as censors of the Transactions for years, 

 and will probably continue to do so, and who will perhaps feel hurt at 

 the outspoken expression of an usually silent Fellow, at any rate so far 

 as their Society is concerned. — J. W. Tutt. February, 1892. 



Moisture Experiment. — I made, last spring, a small experiment as 

 to the effect of almost continuous dampness on larvre. I placed three 

 dozen small larvae of Arctia caja and the same number of A. villica 

 under a large hand-light in a cold greenhouse, and kept the atmosphere 

 under the light constantly moist, except for half-an-hour each day when 

 the light was tilted, for the purpose of allowing the accumulated moisture 

 to run off the glass, and to give the larvai air, and also to dry the food 

 which I had growing in pots, and which consisted of dock, dead-nettle, 



