106 THE entomologist's record. 



student, I happen to know that the bulk of his work is biological ; he 

 has a series of glass-houses, and three assistants constantly employed 

 to carry on his observations of the life-histories of insects, and I could 

 mention other American entomologists equally fortunate. And, finally, 

 if I may be pardoned for a personal reference to myself, has not Mr. 

 Tutt assumed too hastily my complete ignorance of larval stages ? This 

 is hardly just, conndering that I have been a practical collector in all 

 quarters of the globe for 25 year>, 15 of these being spent in England. 

 If, as I suppose, Mr. Tutt has studied British species only, the number 

 of species with whose earlier stages I am practically acquainted must 

 largely exceed those which he knows ; the information obtainable from 

 others is at the disposal of us both. If biologists are to classify, as Mr. 

 Tutt wishes, why is an unfoitunate biologist like myself to be prohibited 

 because I happen to know a little about structure as well? I venture 

 rather to hope that English Lepidopterists may be stimulated to take up 

 the study of structure, in which they are commonly reputed to be behind 

 the students of every other science, and even behind the lepidopterists 

 of every other country. — E. Mevrick, Ramsbury, Hungerford. 

 March 26th, 1892. 



I have the greatest pleasure in printing Mr. Meyrick's note. In fact, 

 I should have been rather disappointed had he not answered my criti- 

 cisms. Mr. Meyrick is quite correct in saying that his system is based 

 on the structure of the imago, but I maintain that the neuration is the 

 main feature relied on. If we look at the tabulation of the families 

 {Trans. Ent. Soc. of Londoii., 1890, p. 436, and 1892, pp. 56-57), I 

 think that it will be conceded that there is little but neuration con- 

 sidered, and that my suggestion as to the broad basis of classification is 

 just, and when we read of the other characters in different genera, 

 similar descriptions in the same words, and almost the only differenti- 

 ation remains with the neuration, I think we may safely conclude that 

 the system is essentially based on the neuration. I quite agree that 

 Mr. Meyrick's facts may, some day, prove to be useful, but it is the 

 ordinal grouping in families and genera which merits our attention, and, 

 in some cases, appears to me to be utterly erroneous. From the former 

 point of view, I should be sorry to say that Mr. Meyrick's careful and 

 praiseworthy accumulation of facts are " utterly worthless," but I do 

 certainly think that the system of classification based on these facts is 

 of no actual value. The term " superficial," was a partial lapsus for 

 "variable," but at the same time I consider most of the characters 

 taken from the external structure of the imago superficial, compared 

 with the more constant and trustworthy ones derived from the larvae and 

 pupse. With regard to Mr. Meyrick's reference to Mr. Butler's paper 

 \Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1879? PP- 313-317)? i feel sure Mr. Meyrick 

 can hardly have read it. If Mr. Meyrick refers to this paper he will see 

 that Mr. Butler, after referring to, and casually examining (?) the blown 

 larvae of the Acrojiycta, then examines the neuration of the imago, and 

 really founded his distribution of the species on these characters, and 

 this fact remains, although he appears to have entirely misapprehended 

 that side of the subject. On this, he finally transferred Viminia rumicis 

 and V. auricoma to the Arctiida, Cuspidia leporina and C. aceris to the 

 Liparidce, C. megacephala^ C. psi, C. tridens and C. strigosa to the Noto 

 dontidcR, whilst C. aini and Bisulcia ligush-i were left in the Noctuites, 



