ni 



to the differences in question. To designate these as subspecies for that reason 

 only cannot, therefore, be justified and the creation of all the special desig- 

 nations is, consequently, usually superfluous. In some cases where species 

 whose different forms must of necessity be distinguished, as for instance with 

 regard to the polymorphism in Pap. MEiViNON L., a trinomial system may certainly 

 be of use even for indicating forms which are not subspecies. But this is 

 simply a question of practical utility ; if interpreted generally, however, according 

 to the present fashion — when, for instance, seperate names are assigned to 

 the numerous forms of Zygaena and Parnassius — it is made to appear as 

 if a matter of scientific importance were involved whereas, in fact, only confusion 

 is occasioned. There are already sufficient names. 



For this reason I do not desire to keep in touch with this so-called prevalent 

 attitude of entomology. Quite recently — in Entom. Mitteihingcn, I, 6 — 

 Prof. C. Emery, of Bologna, has protested against this pseudo-nomenclature 

 which simply occasions confusion. 



Although in working out the Rhopalocera of Java in connection with the 

 systematic division followed by the late Mr. Snellen, the Danaidae, Satyridae, 

 Ragadidae, and Elymniadae have been regarded as so many separate families, 

 I would, however, in accordance with later views in this respect, include the 

 latter two in the Satyridae, in so far as it concerns my general discussion in 

 this introduction and, therefore, take into account only two groups, that of the 

 Danaidae and that of the Satyridae. Both these belong to those Rhopalocera 

 which BoiSDUVAL assigned to the group siispoisi and are, therefore, fairly distinct 

 from his group succindi ; this is especially manifest in the earlier stages, not 

 only with regard to the pupae, to which these designations have reference, but 

 also to the larvae. The larvae of the IMalayo-Australian Danaidae at least — 

 those of the African and American forms I am not sufficiently acquainted 

 with — are characterized by the possession of shorter or longer fleshy processes, 

 such as do not occur in the larvae of the Papilionidae and Pieridae or of the 

 Hesperidae. It is true the most ancient forms of larvae in the genus Papilio, 

 especially the Ornithopiera, do possess fleshy processes but of a totally different 

 character, being straight and rather stiff in appearance, and not in any way 

 capable of voluntary movement as, to a certain extent, is the case in the larvae 

 of Danaidae, evidently as a vestige of a former, much more mobile, condition. 

 In the larvae of Satyridae spiny processes occur at the head and tail, while in 

 those of Nymphalidae similar processes are found in various shapes on other parts, 

 of the body but in the larvae of the families of succindi no trace of them can 

 be observed. A close relationship between these two large groups, which, 



