102 THE entomologist's record. 



thereof by one's knowledge of the pupa of Colias or Gonepteryx, or 

 some similar pupa. But in any family of which one has not actually 

 handled a pupa, a figure or description is generally of very little use. 

 Further, a great many descriptions deal only with general form and 

 coloration, and not with minute structure. 



I must here express my indebtedness to Scudder's Butterflies of Nein 

 England for much information on the morphology and classification of 

 butterflies. The classification which he adopts is a modification of that 

 first proposed by Bates, and is one which my observation of pupas 

 confirms, not only broadly but in considerable detail. This fact gives 

 me great confidence that the view which I take of the value of certain 

 points in pupal structure must be largely correct. 



In Scudder's book much light is thrown upon almost every point 

 relating to butterflies, and it is unquestionably the profoundest and 

 most able work yet published on this section of the Lepidoptera. Yet 

 it is remarkable that throughout his classification, where founded on 

 pu])al characteristics, as well as in his descriptions of individual pupfe 

 (with the exception of a vague reference under Hesperidae), there is no 

 allusion whatever to the (piestion of free segments, no statement as to 

 which incisions still retain power of movement in individual species, 

 no mention of the remarkable limitations of this movement in Pierids 

 and Nymphalids, and reference is made to one only of the *' Micro " 

 characters preserved in the Hesperidae, and then without any apparent 

 recognition of its significance. At least I have failed, after close study 

 of the book, to find more than this, and could hardly have overlooked 

 such allusions did they exist. I mention this in order to illustrate the 

 defectiveness of descriptions and figures generally. If in a work of 

 the highest class, such as Scudder's \indoubtedly is, so little assistance 

 is afforded in some im^Jortant directions, it is obvious that in less 

 scientific works still less help is to be looked for ; it also seems to point 

 to the fact that the lines of evolution followed by the lepidopterous 

 pupa have notonljr been unnoticed but, one might suppose, have hardly 

 been regarded as existing. 



It follows from this, that the material on wliich this paper is based 

 — viz., sucli butterfly pupaa as I have myself been able to examine — is 

 extremely meagre, not amounting to more tlian 2 or 3 per cent, of the 

 ten thousand and odd species of butterflies that exist ; again, while it 

 has been abundant in some families, there are other families of which 

 I remain entirely ignorant. The material at my disposal is, however, 

 sufficient to bring out some important points very distinctly, but others 

 are still obscure and untouched. It is necessary for me, therefore, to 

 sa}^ emphaticall}^ at this point that where I make any statement broadly 

 or dogmatically, I do so always with the proviso understood (but which 

 it would be wearisome continually to repeat), that such statement is 

 correct only so far as m}^ observations have extended. 



To lay this paper before you with such a nariovv basis for its 

 foundation, may perhaps require an apology ; if so, the apology would 

 be, that valuable conclusions may be reached even from this narrow 

 basis, and tliat the basis is not likely to be materially widened at any 

 early date unless attention is called to the subject by some such paper 

 as the present. 



I shall refer to various chai"acters of the pupte and, in supjiort of 

 the conclusions to which these apjjear to point, to a few matters out- 



