100 [May> 



duplicate boxes. Had he examined even a few, he would have 

 recognised this one as typical — not only typical of Crinopteryx, but 

 also purely Neo-Lepidopterous. Then there is his Fig. 12, which he 

 figures as the ordinary neuration of Crinopteryx. I have never met 

 with this. But further, it looks to me to be an entirely impossible 

 neuration, except as a monstrosity. 



In examining the tracheae in the pupal state, of many species, 

 and I have just looked over a number of photographs of these, and 

 have referred to Dr. Spuler's ' Dissertation," 1892, to confirm my 

 memory, one finds that the vein Dr. Spuler marks in Fig 12 and 

 Fig. 13 as II 4 and 5, is most certainly III l, and that his 111 i, of 

 Fig. 12 is an impossible vein, and must therefore be an accidental 

 fold of wing membrane, made in preparing the specimen. Whether 

 it be a monstrosity or be an accident in preparing the specimen, it is 

 difficult to understand how Dr. Spuler took it for the ordinary form 

 in Crinopteryx, which it certainly is not, whatever else it may be. 

 Paucity of material, one again guesses. His Fig. 13 is still more 

 difficult to accept. It is confessedly drawn from a fragment of wing, 

 how broken not stated, and is like nothing neurational T ever heard 

 of. I am forced to conclude that, having inadequate material, Dr. 

 Spuler made some erroneous observations, and incautiously accepted 

 them. The neuration of the hind-wing of Crinopteryx is of an 

 ordinary Neo-Lepidopterous type. Nor is there any reason to believe it 

 varies in (or reverts to) the direction of a Palreo-Lepidopterous form, 

 more often than that of any other species, that is, practically, not at 

 all. 



Generally the pupa is identical with that of Incurvaria, and 

 agrees even to considerable detail. Compared with muscalella the 

 head and mouth parts are identical. 



The Neo-Lepidopterous character of the fixity of terminal segments 

 is very definite in both. 



The general spiculation of surface is the same ; the circum- 

 spiracular bristles are more preserved in muscalella; the dorsal arma- 

 ture is of the same character, but much reduced in muscalella, and is 

 wanting on 2nd abdominal, but other evidence that this segment is 

 fixed is no stronger in one pupa than the other. 



Muscalella has much more solid chitine, and as a result the 

 appendages retain their positions after dehiscence, with more solidity, 

 that they are however, free from the body and from each other, is 

 shown in the empty pupa case by the case of the hiud-wing being as 



