THE LlPE-HlSTOllY OF A LEPIDOPTeHOUS liJSECT. 195 



suppressed, or may have been so greatly modified through adaptation 

 to new habits of Hfe, as to be no longer recognisable. Even in groups, 

 in Avhich the adults have been modified to an extreme degree, community 



of origin is often revealed by the structure of the larva3 As 



the embryo often shows us more or less plainly the structure of the less 

 modified and ancient progenitor of the group, we can see why ancient 

 and extinct forms so often resemble in their adult state, the embryos of 



existing species of the same classes Entomology rises greatly 



in interest, when we look at the embryo as a picture, more or less 

 obscured, of the progenitor, either in its adult or larval state, of all the 

 members of the same great class." 



In this slender outline of the subject, I can only hope to have said 

 enough to convince my readers of the importance of the study of em- 

 bryology. I trust, too, that it will be evident to entomologists, why it 

 is no longer possible to rest content with systems of classification, based 

 upon imaginal features (palpi, wing-markings, neuration, &g.) and why, 

 more and more, scientific men are demanding that classification shall 

 take into account the whole life-history. 



gCIENTIFIC NOTES & OBSERVATIONS. 



On eggs as helping to determine natural affinities. — With 

 reference to that portion of Mr. Tutt's paper (Ent. Bee, vol. v., p. 142) 

 which deals with this subject, I should like to be allowed to make a 

 few remarks. As far as I am aware, entomology is the only branch of 

 zoology which has clung tenaciously to the doctrine, well expressed by 

 Haeckel's terse phrase (GenercUe Morphologic, 1866), " ontogeny recapi- 

 tulates phylogeny," in an approximately literal sense, and although I 

 will not accuse Mr. Tutt or any other thoughtful entomologist of enter- 

 taining the notion that all moths at present existing have sprung from 

 ancestors, each of which resembled the egg that the imago now develops 

 from, yet, nevertheless, there seems to be an undercurrent of feeling 

 pervading entomological literature, the tendency of which is to consider 

 Le])idoptera with similar ova as more closely allied than those with 

 dissimilar ones ; this I hold to be quite unsupported by facts, and cpiite 

 at variance with the conclusions to be drawn from other developmental 

 histories. Anyone who has glanced at the rudiments of general 

 embryology must be aware of the extremely diverse embryonic types 

 of many families, genera, or even species ; e.g. in the well-known case 

 of BalanogJossns Jioioalcwshn and B. kilpfferi, the latter closely resembles 

 in its Tornaria stage a free-swimming star-fish larva, and was in fact 

 originally mistaken for one, while the former has an opaque larva 

 which burrows in mud. These facts, and many others which could be 

 brought forward indicative of a completely difi"erent fundamental 

 organization in the larva of undoubtedly allied genera, show, I think, 

 the absurdity of basing any classification on such points of similarity 

 in ova as number of ribs or external outline, wlxich seems to me like 

 trying to classify birds b}"- the number of spots on their egg-shells. In 

 fact, in general, I think, entomologists are far too apt to rely on 

 embryonic peculiarities for purposes of classification ; e.g. if a new 

 caterpillar were discovered to-morrow with foin* claspers, whatever its 



