— i7c— 



Prof. Riley commenting on the paper," thinks that Mr. Hulst makes 

 out his case very well. The characters enumerated, make the insect an 

 anomalous one wherever placed, still the bulk of the characters are geo- 

 metrid and he thinks that most Lfepidopterists would instinctively place 

 it with the geometers, rather than the Bombycids. He had previously, 

 in a note to some paper on the preparatory stages of other insects referred 

 to the peculiar pupa of this species, which is the only instance known to 

 him where a heterocerous pupa was girthed, and fastened by thecremast- 

 er as in the Papilionidae; and the resemblance was further heighthened by 

 two small horns, or ears, which gave the insect the appearance of a 

 miniature Papilio cresphontes. We have here the anomaly of a moth, low 

 in the scale, mimicing a character peculiar to buttertlies usually placed 

 among the highest, by systematists. He thinks the only conclusion to 

 be formed from this, is that the adolescent stages are not always to be 

 depended on in defining the proper position of the mature insect. In 

 reference to Mr. Smith's paper there were two points to be remarked on. 



First, — the genitalia in some groups have been well and carefully 

 studied, and as it is desirable that there should be uniformity in nomen- 

 clature, new names should not be proposed for the parts, but so far as 

 possible the names used by others should be adopted. 



Second, — he agreed entirely with Mr. Smith's strictures on the work 

 of the Lepidopterists, which had heretofore been so superficial that it had 

 been often made a reproach, and their work was looked on as unscien- 

 tific. The specific descriptions are often very unsatisfactory, based on 

 the most inconstant characters, and the generic descriptions are even 

 worse. In reference to the genitalia he doubts whether they will be as 

 useful in systematic work as is now supposed, and venation and other 

 structures will still have to be relied upon. 



When first the variability in this respect was discovered, it appeared 

 valuable; but larger study he thinks will shake our faith. He says, too, 

 that he finds more or less variability in the same species. He has found 

 that some species otherwise closely allied are widely separated by this 

 character, and again species perfectly distinct are nearly alike in this 

 respect. He looks upon them as of secondary importance, and con- 

 siders them as adaptations and special functional developments, that 

 must not be too strongly urged, though undoubtedly of value as Mr. 

 Smith suggests, in connection with other characters. 



In reference to the anterioi tibial epiphysis nothing certain can be 

 said, though there is little doubt but it serves some purpose in the at 

 traction of the sexes. He does not believe that it is a scent organ as has 

 been suggested. 



