o THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



species being so close, though the localities are so far apart. 

 Chrysophamis salustius is a common species, about the size of 

 C. virc/aura, and not greatly dissimilar ; but the male has spots 

 on the upper side; it has the flitting flight so familiar in C. 

 phloeas. 



Here I would enter a protest against commencing a book 

 with specialized groups (most recent), and finishing with the 

 most generalized groups (most ancient). Mathematics advance 

 from simple calculation to complex problems ; chemistry from 

 simple principles to analysis : why not zoology from generalized 

 to specialized organisms, the latter admittedly having evolved 

 from organisms similar to the former ? The result in Hudson's 

 work is that we turn from the Rhopalocera (Papilionina) to the 

 Micropterygina : from one of the most specialized divisions of 

 the Lepidoptera to the most generalized. We read : " The 

 Micropterygina are the ancestral group of Lepidoptera, from 

 which all others have descended." This is rather rich, consider- 

 ing the present state of our knowledge of the groups of smaller 

 Lepidoptera, and the fact that the Micropterygina (including 

 Hepialidae !) alone possess the jugum, this statement is without 

 parallel in science. That Frenatse and Jugatse were derived 

 from Trichoptera is undoubtedly true, but the one from the 

 other I do not think can even be assumed upon any existing 

 knowledge of structure in the Lepidoptera. 



The home of the Hepialidse is, I think, the Australasian 

 region ; my lists show twenty-nine species — possibly thirty-one 

 species — already described in Australia, and nine species described 

 in New Zealand — a total of possibly forty species, against eight 

 species in Europe, of which five are British. The great interest 

 attaching to this group of the Lepidoptera requires very special 

 treatment of the descriptions of all stages ; unfortunately, 

 Hudson's figures of the Porinas (plate xiii.), with which I am 

 acquainted, are bad ; so much so, that a correspondent wrote, 

 asking me whether the North Island forms differ from the South 

 Island forms of certain species, as he was unable to recognize 

 the species (by the figures) with Southern forms which he 

 collected. I possess good series of four species — Porina um- 

 hraculata, signata, despecta, cervinata, from North and South, and 

 cannot observe any local variation; they are, in fact, remarkably 

 constant, except P. cervinata, which is most variable, and I have 

 one from the South very black in ground colour, offering almost 

 a parallel with the var. hethlandica of Hepialus humuli. The 

 figures of imagos, male and female, of Hepialus virescens (plate 

 xiii.), are excellent ; this is one of the handsomest of the Hepia- 

 lidae with which I am acquainted, the only species in the genus, 

 and the largest of the group in New Zealand. Hudson figures 

 the adult larva (plate iii.), and places the position of the 

 spiracles correctly, although he does not indicate the position of 



