to confirm the Mendelian theory. If the experiment of Darwin is cited, who, 

 by the crossing of a white with a black pigeon, is said to have obtained a 

 blue pigeon in the second generation, the nature of this blue ought to be 

 inquired into. As to Lepidoptera, colour-evolution seems only to occur as far 

 as the pigmental colours are concerned? but then blue is never a pigmental 

 but always a structural colour and is specially frequently met with on 

 scales, containing a black pigment. But as to what is the nature of the 

 colours in question, why the ancestors of the said hens were white or black, 

 or from what that colouring has arisen, about all that the Mendelian theory 

 does not trouble itself. Words such as dominant or recessive element, and the 

 like, have, of course, to take the place of an explanation. The usual method 

 nowadays. To what an absurd, quasi learning a blind persistence in the said 

 theor}- can lead, was lately evident on the occasion of researches concerning 

 the polymorphism of Pap. Memnon L. in two papers, typical of the same 

 nature as the absurdities, that have excreted on the mimicry theory. When 

 treating on this species, I shall fully recur to this. 



In the first place I must speak here about a subject which in the treatment 

 of this family may not be passed over in silence, viz. the question whether the 

 Hesperidae may really be reckoned among the Rhopalocera group. Formerly 

 this was generally accepted, afterwards, however, systematists have arisen who 

 maintain that this must be erroneous, and owing to the fact that I had followed 

 the old custom in my study concerning the appendages of the wings of the 

 Lepidoptera I was, some years ago now, severely criticised by a certain German 

 systematist, who reproached me with not keeping pace with modern entomology. 

 Such an attack I regarded as rather childish in itself and the more so because 

 it was made by a mere systematist ; for how insignificant after all, from a 

 systematic point of view, is this division into the two groups of Rhopalocera 

 and Heterocera? But, moreover, I venture to question the soundness of this 

 point of view. Originally the difference assumed between these two groups was 

 not founded on systematic, but on biological grounds, and, indeed, the main 

 difference between the two still lies therein, though in later years it has all 

 been wrapped in a systematic dress by determining structural characteristics, 

 especially as regards the absence of a fully-developed bristle and loop, fastening 

 the fore-and hind-wings near the base, and in regard to the antennae, from 

 which, indeed their name has since been derived. From a biological point of 

 view the family of the Hesperidae undoubtedly stands nearest to the Rhopalocera, 

 notwithstanding the fact that, first, the shaj^e of its antennae differs somewhat 

 from that of the Rhopalocera proper — bui. still much less than from that ot 

 the Heterocera — and secondly, that the Hesperidae, a family undoubtedly 



