CLASSIFICATIOX OF BUTTERFLIES. 71 



work), Mo.scliIer, Frcv, and Burmeister, wlio simply followed in the lines 

 of some predecessors, nor A\^illace who has not discussed the general clas- 

 sification of l)utterflics and so is not mentioned above; while anionfj those 

 who ha\H' jdaci'd the \vm[)halidae highest have been Iliihner, Dalman, 

 Ochscnlu'imcr, Ilciaemann, Herrich-SchafFer and Plotz amon<)- the (icr- 

 mans, l)ui)onchel, Bniant, Ivambnr, Girard, and J>ar anionij the French, 

 and among the English J3atcs, Butler, Kirby, Newman, Distant, Trimen 

 (in his later work), Moore and indeed all the recent writers. 



Among the authors who have placed the Nymphalidac at the head, by 

 no means all have acknowledged the close relationship of the Papilionidae 

 to the llesperidae. But on the other hand, this has been recognized by 

 many who did not give the Nyraphalidae the highest position. Thus it 

 has been clearly pointed out or indicated by GeofFroy, by Denis and 

 8chitfermiiller, Schrank, Latreille and Cuvier, by Swainson and Stephens 

 among the idealists or cyclists, by Bi'uant, Heineman, Bates, Herrich- 

 SchafFer, Rambur, Girard, Butler, Kirby, Distant, Trimen, jMoore, New- 

 man, Smith and Plotz. 



The weight of authority, however, is a matter of least importance. The 

 question is rather one of fiict. and while we have no right to expect that 

 anv great difference in relative rank will be found between groups of so 

 low a grade as families within a single order, we nevertheless do find two 

 very strilving facts, which can leave very little doubt in the mind of any 

 unprejudiced student as to the general sequence in which these groups 

 should follow each other. This is the more clearly the case inasmuch 

 as there is no doubt in the mind of any one that one of these families, 

 the Hesperidae, holds the lowest rank and is the most closely related 

 to the moths. It would seem, therefore, as if in the structural departure of 

 the families, as such, from the Hesperidae, we might find a clue to their 

 relative positions ; and this is unquestionably the case. The classification 

 which is presented in this work differs only in minor points from that for- 

 merlv proposed by me, which in its turn followed closely in the line of the 

 reformation by Bates. Any variation in the arrangement of the subordinate 

 groups from that system will be explained in its proper place. It is only 

 desirable here to discuss very briefly the relative position of those fiunilies 

 which by all writers are regarded as higher than the Hesperidae. To do this 

 it will be hardly necessary to go further than to point out two series in the 

 structure and habits of butterflies, to show how marked and distinct is the 

 transition from one groiq) to another, — series which have not only been 

 recognized by diftcrent writers, but have been considered important enough 

 to be placed at the foundation of their schemes of classification. 



In the first place, let us take those features which were first l)rought 

 forcibly to view by Dalman and afterwards by Boisduval, the latter of 

 whom nevertheless misapplied them in the strangest manner and for no 



