150 THE entomologist's record. 



mediate between the Papilionids and Nyniplialids. Katlier should the 

 Leinouiidae and Li/aienidae be regarded as a branch which developed 

 from the primeval Ijutterfly (above the Hes})erids) in one direction, 

 whilst the I'apilionids arose and branched to the Pierids and 

 Nymphalids quite independently, t Another point is that the Pierid 

 separated from the Papilionid at a very early stage of the evolution of 

 the latter, and that the Nymphalid almost immediately thereafter 

 separated from the Pierid, at a time, that is, when each yet retained (as 

 many genera do still) both the 5tli and 6th abdominal segments free, 

 and before the Pierid had definitely acquired a single instead of a 

 double nose-horn. 



Though, as a matter of fact, tlie families of true butterflies arose in 

 the order indicated, yet, from our present position in time, we might 

 almost regard them as having arisen simultaneously ; each was already 

 separate and distinct, before any of them had made any advance 

 towards the higher sub-families, tribes and genera which are now most 

 characteristic of them. 



The primeval butterfly attained by a separate route almost the same 

 pujjal structure as the Macro-Heterocera, and gave origin to all the 

 separate families without any substantial change of that structure ; but 

 in each family the higher tribes have attained a special and more 

 advanced pupal form, in this respect contrasting with the fixedness of 

 form in the pupa of the Macro-Heteuocera and being more in accordance 

 with the manner of evolution of the Micro-Tineina. 



The numerous very definite Micro-Heterocerous characters of the 

 Hesperids seem to furnish a clear indication of their derivation, and to 

 enable us to accept the completely micro-characters of Castnia and 

 Sesia as placing them on the line of butterfly evolution, and not as })ut- 

 ting a gulf between them and butterflies. I3ut especially they appear 

 to prove the descent, either by tliis or by some other route, of the 

 butterflies from the Micro-Hetekocera, and to show that, except 

 through the Micro-Heterocera, the butterflies are unrelated to the 

 Macro-Heterocera, with which, however, they are structurall}'^ more 

 parallel in many respects ; i.e., they are not only as highly, but very 

 similarly differentiated, although quite independently. 



It ought, perhaps, to be noted that the Ilesperid proper underwent 

 further evolution after the separation of the Ijutterfly stirps. 



I have endeavoured to make the relationships of the several forms of 

 pupa3 dealt with in this paper more definitely obvious, by using them 

 in the table below as a basis for the general classification of the 

 Bhopalocera, 



Scheme of Classification of tlie I^hopalocera founded on 



the structure of the pupae- 



PAPILIONES. 



? (Pupa a true " Micro " = CASTNIIDES). 



1. — Pupa broadly a *' Macro " but possessing some " Micro " characters 



^ HESPERIDES. 



t I do not wish this to be understood as denying; that Papilio must 

 nevertheless be taken as the nearest representative we liave of the primary 

 butterfly. 



