RELATIONSHIP OF THE LOWER LEPIDOPTERA WITH TRICHOPTERA. 29 



(p. 221). Chapman says that in neuration we find the next stage 

 (in the evohition of the diseoidal cell) to that obseiwable in I Icjiutlits, " in 

 Zeuzcra, and we pass on without any great hiatus to Cossus. In 

 several higher groups, and especially in many Torthicides, certain 

 records of the later stages of the process remain. A similar evolution 

 may be traced in the Tineid stirps." 



The most recent work on the subject, therefore, suggests that the 

 Micropterygides is the remnant of the ancestral stirps from which the 

 Adelids, etc., have been derived, whilst Hepialides is the remnant 

 of another ancestral stirps, from which the Zeuzerids and Cossids have 

 been derived. We have yet to learn that the characters which both 

 have in common with the Trichoptera, ally them very closely to each 

 other, or that it is scientifically correct to unite two such dissimilar 

 bases in the same Sub-order — Jugat.e — as is done by Comstock, instead 

 of with those more specialised families which have sprung from them. 



We have seen, then, that the Jugat.e as a Sub-order cannot stand, 

 but that each of the Super-families included therein must be grouped, 

 as it were, with the higher or more specialised families which have 

 sprung therefrom, if the system of classification adopted is to exhibit 

 any real relationships. In the same way it is possible that, as our 

 information becomes less fragmentary, many of the Super-families in 

 Chapman's Incomplet.e will be shown to lead directly or indirectly to 

 Super-families now included in Obtect.f., so that these names will fall, 

 so far as indicating relationships, and this we take it is the ultimate 

 end of all systems of classification. At the same time we trust that 

 we have shown that one can be logical, and yet (in a book) separate 

 Hi'piaUdac, Microjitcri/tjiihte and KrwcephaUdae by numerous families, 

 and that their position, remote from all other Lepidoptera, except in 

 the restricted sense that Ave have explained, is not a very widely- 

 accepted change, however important it may be. 



Entomology, Evolution, and Romance: a plea for a new departure. 



[A Criticism of Mr. Frost's Article] . 

 By H. H. CORBETT, M.R.C.S. 



The somewhat extraordinary essay under the above heading, Avhich 

 appeared in Tlic Entcniioldi/iifs Record, vol. vii., No, 12, should not, I 

 think, be allowed to pass without some comment, and with your per- 

 mission I offer a feAv criticisms on passages selected si'iiatini from it. 



" A dictionary states that entomology treats of insects ; this would 

 be more correct to-day if put in the past tense." Why in the past tense ? 

 Does not entomology to-day treat of insects ? Is not every insect in 

 itself " a definite coherent heterogeneity," which in its life-history has 

 undergone changes from a state of " homogeneity " (ovum) ; and are 

 not our entomologists of the new school endeavouring to work out the 

 meaning of the various stages, the " history of the steps ? " 



"Mr. Herbert Spencer laid down the rule, "That no analytical 

 truths, no combination of analytical truths, can ever make up that 

 synthesis of thought which alone must be the interpretation of the 

 synthesis of things. He fortunately never carried this principle very 

 far towards its logical conclusion, &c." Quite true, analysis, whether 

 chemical, or by the scalpel, can never result in synthesis. But when 



