NOTES ON BITTRHKI,Y IMI'.I-;, RTC. 127 



together from the Papilionifl, shortly afterwards separating, and thence- 

 forward pursuing very parallel courses. It would follow that, in spite 

 of the method of suspension of the })upa and of sundry imaginal 

 characters, tlie Pierids are nearly if not (piite as much entitled as the 

 Nymphalids to rank as a separate family from the I'apilionids, and to 

 be associated with the Nym])halids rather tlian with the Pa})ilionids. 



As we pass from the Aporinae to the higher sub-families of Vicridae, we 

 find progTessive loss of movement. In the Picriiiae only tlie fifth seg- 

 ment remains movable ; the same condition obtains in the Rhodocerinae, 

 and in the Antliocarlnae the pupa is solid. I have not obtained any 

 Pierid pupa with only one incision moveable. Whilst I would sejiarate 

 Aporia from Pleris as distinctly as 1 would Rhodocera from Anthocarts 

 {Euchlo''), it seems incorrect to associate Pieriswiih A' Aorfocera because both 

 liappen to have the same formula of segmental mol)ility. The curved 

 form of pujia, due to the ventral bulging of the wings and the shortness 

 of the antennae, associates Rhodocera and Anthocarii'-, but places them 

 apart from the others. By analogy with other families, I should expect 

 to find the Anthocarine pupa separated from the Pierine, whilst both 

 were still at the Aporine stage, that is with Ijotli Stli and 6th abdominal 

 segments movable, and that the genealogical tree would not be thus — 

 1, Aporia ; 2, Pieris ; 3, Rhodocera ; 4, Anthocaris, but rather as under, 

 the blanks rejiresenting forms that probably exist though unknown to 

 me. 



Early form with 5 and 6 

 movable. 



Pupa straight. | Pupa curved. 



3 incisions (2 segments) with movement Aporinae ' ? 



2 „ (1 segment) ,, „ Pierinae \ Rhodocerinae 



1 ,. 9 9 



„ jj )> •^1 -A-ntliocarinac 



In the Nymphalids we again find that movement of segments is lost 

 in some tribes. If we assume those with full movement to be the 

 lowest (that is the least divergent from the ancestral form), then we 

 must give this place to the Vanessidi ffigs. 12-13-14-15), Anjynnidi 

 (including Melitaea), Acraeidi, Heliconidi and Apaturidi. Of these the 

 Argynuidi would be the highest, as they have lost the straight form 

 that would result from their derivation from the Pierids. Whether 

 we may attach any value to the very Pierid-like aspect of sundry 

 Acraea pupa* as showing them to be the lowest, is more than I am 

 prepared to assert. The Satyriuae (usually so-called) would be entitled 

 to be divided into several tribes, the lowest (the Meadow Browns) with 

 freedom of movement preserved, being a tribe some steps in advance of 

 the Argynnidi. 



One chief reason for looking upon them as near the Argynnidi is thi^ 

 pattern of the pupal markings, which is very much the same a« in 

 Argynnis and Vanessa. The remainder form two or more tribes 

 according to the loss of movement to one incision (hyperanthtis) (figs. 

 22-23^, or absolutel}^ (seiuele, galatea). Though contrary to our 

 traditions to place galatea as far awa^^ from ianira as Vanessa is from 

 Argynnis, it is not so shocking on a little consideration as at first siglit 

 it appears. The pupa of Vanessa has very much the general aspect 



