104 TUE entomologist's kecokd. 



otherwise solidified incisions, wliicli is observed in some species. There 

 is another noticeable difference which may 2J0ssil)ly be associated with 

 the retention of these early features ; the Papilionid pupa is capable of 

 further evobition, as evidenced by the fact that additional features 

 appear as we pass from it to the higher families, whilst the " Macro " 

 pupa among the Heterocera seems to l)e a terminus not yet at least 

 over-passed {Spilosoma may seem to be an exception). 



Ephyra Zonosoma is interesting as an illustration of the fact that habits 

 and structure very nearly identical may be reached by quite distinct paths. 

 Ji;st as the pupa of Papilio is, in its general structure, nearly identical 

 with that of one of the Macro-Heterocera, so that of Ephyra comes 

 even closer still to that of Pajn'lio, with which it is nearly identical in 

 general form and in manner of suspension. Yet it is as nearly certain 

 as anj'thing of the sort can be, that we must go back as far, or nearly as 

 far, as Hejn'alus to find a common ancestor. Wherein then does the pupa 

 of Ephyra difi^er from that of Papilio ? It is smooth and rounded ; still 

 it has a well-developed ridge near the inner margin of the wing similar 

 to that in Papilio, and this is veiy unusual in a Geometer })U23a. This 

 ridge originates at an anterior sjiine that, in Papilio, usually gives off a 

 ridge to the middle of the wing, the inner marginal ridge starting from 

 a spine situated farther back. Yet there are pupai of Papilio in which 

 there is little or no trace of the ridge running to the centre of the wing, and 

 in which the two spines are connected by a ridge ; whilst in Epjhyra there 

 is a slight break, as if a posterior spine could be distinguished. But 

 there are points of difference between the pupai which seem to be quite 

 distinctive ; the first of these is the entire absence in Epjhyra of any 

 nose-horn ; a second, that the girth is not incorporated in the pupal 

 case across the dorsum ; thirdl}^ in Ephyra a portion of the femur is 

 seen between the maxillae and the first pair of legs, whilst between the 

 apices of the wings the tips of the antennae, together with the ex- 

 tremities of two pair of legs, are visible. It is certainly very rare for 

 even one pair of legs to reach this point in Papilio, and I know no 

 instance of an exposed femur therein. In some Hesperids the girth is 

 loose and the tips of the third pair of legs are exposed beside the wing 

 apices, a feature that does not occur in true butterflies. The foui'th 

 difference between the pujDEe of Epjhyra and Papilio lies in the frequent 

 opening of closed incisions on dehiscence in Pajjilio ; this does not occur 

 in Ephyra. 



In taking Paprilio as the simplest form of the true butterflies, and 

 therefore as nearest to the Hesperids, and in regarding the other fami- 

 lies as derivatives from Papilio, I desire to be understood merely as 

 meaning that Papilio still closely represents the pi'imeval butterfly 

 when it had become truly a butterfly as distinguished from a Hesi^erid, 

 and as regarding the other families as having been derived from this 

 primeval form, and not from Papilio itself. The pupa of this primeval 

 form possibly differed from that of Papilio in having a single instead 

 of a double '* nose-horn," but no doubt Papilio very closely resembles 

 it. 



I may mention here that Scudder gives the names " ocellar tubercle " 

 and " ocellar prominence," to what I have called " nose-horn." I have 

 preferred the latter as a provisional colloquial name, because it involves 

 no theory. The term " tubercle " is now so definitely appropriated 

 (in Lepidoptera) to certain larval structures, that one does not choose 



