1898] NOTES AND COMMENTS 200 
44, pls. i.-i11.), Mr Grote considers in detail the neuration in certain 
genera of the “ Whites” and the “ Brush-footed butterflies,” which 
he believes to be rather closely related to each other. 
Meanwhile Dr K. Jordan has published a study of butterfly- 
feelers (“ Contributions to the Morphology of the Lepidoptera ; 
the Antennae of Butterflies,’ Wov. Zoolog., vol. v. pp. 374-415, pls. 
xiv., xv.) which has led him in many respects to conclusions at vari- 
ance with those of Mr Grote. From the amount of scaling on the 
feelers, and the arrangement of grooves with sensations on the ventral 
surface of their segments, he associates the Nymphalidae and Papilion- 
idae together as the most highly specialised butterflies. In the Nym- 
phalidae there are two ventral grooves on each segment, in the 
Papilionidae either two or one; the latter condition occurring in the 
Parnassinae, but their single groove apparently representing one of the 
lateral grooves in the Papilios. Among the other families, there 
are either no ventral grooves (Hesperiidae, Lycaenidae), or one 
(Erycinidae, some Pieridae), or three (other Pieridae). 
Dr Jordan’s valuable research will be welcomed by all students 
of the Lepidoptera, and no one can doubt that such characters as he 
indicates must be taken into account in the discussion of affinities. 
At the same time, a comparison of his results with those of Mr 
Grote raises the question whether it is advisable to erect a phylo- 
genetic classification on facts relating only to one set of organs. We 
are constantly receiving fresh light as new structures are studied, 
and several modifications of current arrangements seem to be sup- 
ported by converging lines of evidence. For instance pupal struc- 
ture (Chapman), wing neuration (Grote), and antennal characters 
(Jordan) all combine to indicate that the Hesperiidae and Lycaenidae 
must be regarded as the most primitive families. On the other 
hand, Mr Grote’s association of the Pieridae with the Nymphalidae 
and their allies, while supported by the pupal characters elucidated 
by Dr Chapman, is, as we have seen, contradicted by the feelers as 
interpreted by Dr Jordan. 
It is of interest to note that Mr Grote and Dr Jordan, in these 
two papers, agree in restoring to the Pieridae the abnormal West 
African insect Pseudopontia (or Gonophlebia) paradoxa, which Dr 
Butler and others have been inclined to regard as a moth. Both its 
wing-neuration and antennal structure prove it to be an abnormal 
pierid butterfly. 
AN ENTOMOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY 
In the same volume of the Novitates Zoologicae (pp. 435-455) Dr 
Jordan replies to some aspersions cast on the work of himself and 
Mr W. Rothschild, by the late Professor Eimer in his recently pub- 
lished “ Orthogenesis der Schmetterlinge.” Dr Jordan is apparently 
