SCIENTIFIC NOTES. 107 



so that it must be clearly understood that Mr. Butler was not "guided 

 solely by these reniarkable differences in the earlier stages" in his 

 "attempt to break up the genus," but positively by the neuration, which, 

 from his point of view, was sufficiently near to those families to which 

 he proposed transferring them, for his purpose. Dr. Chapman has 

 proved most conclusively that Mr. Butler's examination (if it may in- 

 deed be called as much) of the larv^ led him into ridiculous error, but 

 his paper shows, at the same time, that it was his idea of the neuration 

 \\ hich confirmed his notions, and led liim into the latal position which 

 has made entomologists smile whenever they hear of Mr. Butler's sub- 

 division of the genus Acronyda. As to OEdoinatophoius lithodactyla, it 

 is not a matter of what Mr. Tutt "supposes," but it is an actual fact 

 that siinilidac/yla, "DaXe = Iit/iodacty!a, Tr. Of course, if the use of the 

 name is admitted by Mr. Meyrick to be erroneous, there is an end ot 

 the matter, as he will correct it, but it is of no use allowing a palpable 

 error to go on because Wocke did not know better. I think Mr. 

 Meyrick will find that Eiipithecia abietaria and E. togata are synony- 

 mous (I know they are treated as distinct in the Continental catalogues, 

 but these, unfortunately, are very unreliable), and these are placed in 

 different genera {Irans. Ent. Soc. Loud., 1892, pp. 66-68). I quite 

 agree with Mr. Meyrick, re his remarks on T. biundidaria, but 1 re- 

 member Mr. Meyrick stated most positively that some 60 or 70 speci- 

 mens of this species had been examined, whilst, of other species, only 

 one or two, and it immediately occurred to me whether the neuration 

 of the species (apparently permanent) would have varied to an equal 

 degree had a corresponding number of specimens been operated on. I 

 think, from my own knowledge, that 1 can safely answer yes ! and Mr. 

 Meyrick's work itself bears out the suggestion in the 15 pp. of examples of 

 variation in neuration in Trans. Ent. Soc. Land., 1892, pp. 126-140. 

 Mr. Meyrick also refers to my own work. Colour and markings are 

 useful, in a general way, to discriminate species, but we should fail 

 hopelessly in certain species until we recognised them by all their 

 characters, including colour and markings. Neuration (which is another 

 variable factor) might be of occasional use to distinguish species, but 

 would fail alone in certain cases, as do colour and markings. Besides 

 JNIr. Meyrick does not select these variable factors in the imago to 

 discriminate species, but to classify a group, and give us natural affini- 

 ties. The consequence is that his system generally fails most absolutely. 

 Mr. Meyrick's reference to the ordinary classification of Vertebrata is 

 misleading. These are not classified on one character alone, but on a 

 combination of many. We use a character like dentition, as we c'o 

 colour, antennae, etc., in lepidoptera, to tell us quickly where we should 

 ex[)ect the creature to fall, not to determine its actual position. To 

 do this we examine all its characters. I do not quite agree with Mr. 

 Meyrick that the palpi of lepidoptera are altogether analogous with the 

 teeth of mammals, the former are limbs, the latter simply epidermal 

 structures, nor, except in a very indirect way, are the bones analogous 

 with the neuration. I know nothing of the knowledge of American 

 micro-leindopterists besides that which can be gathered from their 

 published works, and I maintain that the life-history of very few of 

 their species appear to be known, or, if known, published. The butter- 

 flies have been well worked out, but Scudder and Edwards have not 



