A REPLY TO MR. BRIGGS. 299 



has not yet seen reason in the theory of evolution, I hope his 

 acceptance of the newer doctrine may not be " out of the range 

 of practical politics." 



Any one who will take the trouble to examine any large 

 collection of Lycaenidse to which he may have access, and will 

 also study the habits of the larvae and the appearance and 

 structure of ova, larvge and pupae of the genera Polyommatus, 

 Lyccena and Thecla, should not, from an evolutionist's point of 

 view, have any difHculty in admitting the probability of these 

 being modified descendants of a common ancestor. 



Mr. Briggs would seem to expect that I may be inclined to 

 go further than simply suggesting community of descent for the 

 trio adverted to. In this he only does me justice. I have but 

 to contemplate the wonderful and beautifully wrought chain which 

 links species with species, genus with genus, and family with 

 family, to say that I am prepared to make a very much more 

 sweeping assertion. Neither the present time nor place are, 

 however, suitable for any such extended statement of my con- 

 victions touching the question of origin by descent. 



Concerning Lyccena argiades I think that if Mr. Briggs will 

 be good enough to again read my observations upon the occurrence 

 of this insect in England, he will find that I have not put forward 

 any dogmatical opinion. I admitted at the time that my view 

 was necessarily speculative, and my mind is not now closed on 

 the subject. If it can be shown that my conclusions were 

 arrived at by a false process of reasoning, well and good ; 

 but I contend that the " ready-made theory," as Mr. Briggs 

 somewhat unkindly terms my view of the matter, is not upset 

 by a simple statement of dissent, even though it be accom- 

 panied by a suggestion that L. argiades cannot have been in 

 this country for even so short a period as thirty years previous to 

 the time of its capture. That the species does not appear to 

 have been detected in any part of this country before the year 

 1874 (Entom. xviii. 292) is no proof that it did not exist here 

 anterior to that date. I have admitted as possible both immi- 

 gration and introduction by man's agency ; but although I will 

 not argue the point fiirthei- here, I may say that I still incline to 

 the n]iinion expressed (Entom. xix. 0). It may, however, interest 

 Mr. Briggs to know that I am engaged on a work in which 

 this and other matters of a kindred nature will be more 



