108 THE entomologist's record. 



based their work on the structure of the imago ; they have worked out 

 the affinities, in many instances, from the larvae, their genera sometimes 

 being based entirely on such. If Prof. Fernald is so well situated as 

 Mr. Meyrick suggests, it will be very regrettable should he attempt to 

 classify and arrange the American micro-lepidoptera on characters of 

 the imago, and overlook, as Mr. Meyrick's diagnoses show that he has 

 done, the earlier stages entirely. I sincerely trust I have done no in- 

 justice to Mr. Meyrick, or hurt his personal feelings, but I only assume 

 Mr. Meyrick's ignorance to the larval stages to the extent that he has 

 tailed to use them, and I must confess that being a collector for 25 

 years in all parts of the world does not commend itself to me as an 

 absolutely necessary qualification for classifying insects, and although 

 Mr. Meyrick is not quite correct in supposing that I have studied 

 British insects only, and although he may (?) be practically acquainted 

 with the earlier stages of a larger number of species of lepidoptera than 

 myself, yet this greater knowledge is valueless as far as the entomo- 

 logical world in general is concerned, as he has the knowledge hidden 

 away, and has failed, so far as I can see, to make the slightest use of it, 

 although in his note above he would appear to imply that he has. I 

 suppose we are all biologists in a way, but there are differences in 

 degree, and I am afraid that Mr. Meyrick's examination of nervures, 

 palpi and legs are as unavailable as my studies in nervures, colour, 

 wing-markings and imago structure generally, to get any very useful 

 idea ut classification, which I would leave to those deeper biologists 

 who make exact studies of the eggs, larvse, pupae, and their 

 anatomy, and support the general conclusions arrived at by these 

 studies, by the examination of the more superficial imago structure, on 

 which Mr. Meyrick entirely relies. He may know a little or much 

 about the structure of the larvse, etc., but he does not refer to them in 

 any of his diagnoses. I quite agree with Mr. Meyrick's final wish, but 

 hope that those who study structure will not make the palpi, legs, 

 neuration, etc. (all characters which frequently vary, even in the sexes 

 of the same species, like the size and shape of the wings), their goal, but 

 study the subject from the point of view of the ovum, larva and pupa, 

 in connection with which will be found most of the useful and reliable 

 characters necessary for a classification which will satisfy those whose 

 scientific minds love order, and who want to see some comparatively 

 stable system adopted. 



So much in reference to Mr. Meyrick's remarks above. I would 

 now go further and take one or two examples to illustrate my objec- 

 tions. This will make my position clear to British lepidopterists who 

 do not care to investigate the matter further. Mr. Meyrick writes : — 

 " It will be well to mention here some of the general rules of classifi- 

 cation. No genus, family, or higher group is tenable, unless distinctly 

 separable from all others by points of structure, which, whether singly 

 or in conjunction, are capable of accurate definition.^ If a systematist 

 is not able to define by a clear and not simply comparative character 

 the distinction between two genera, he is bound to merge them together; 

 thus, to say that in one the cell is short and in another long, is no 

 sufficient definition;- to say that in one the cell is less than one-third 



^ I suppose this is meant only to apply to the imago condition. If so, why ? 



^ Is this not purely imaginary, or can Mr. Meyrick give us one of our existent 

 genera thus defined ? If Mr. Meyrick traces Guenee's application of our generic 

 names, I think he will find no such absurd differentiation. 



