PSYCHE. 



105 



EGG-LAYIXG OF DEIDAMIA 

 INSCRIPTA. 



On June 4, 1S97, I found on the under side 

 of a leaf of Ampelopsis quinquefolia, seven 

 eggs irregularly set, but evidently laid at the 

 same date, and that a recent one. The eggs 

 were very dark green and, under a glass, 

 showed slight "facetting," and were unmis- 

 takably sphingid. Further search brought 

 to light a second leaf with six eggs, and a 

 tendril with two. 



Four days later these eggs all hatched, giv- 

 ing larvae marked with a reddish spot be- 

 hind and below the caudal horn. The larvae 

 were yellow with almost no tinge of green, 

 and remained so after feeding for three days. 

 My previous experience with young sphingid 

 larvae has been that they grew green after 

 one day's feeding. The caudal horn was 

 black with the tip white and ending in two 

 setae. 



On June 17 I found, on the same vine, four 

 similar eggs, but laid among the flower-buds 

 in such wise as to be well concealed by their 

 strong resemblance to the buds in both size 

 and color. As the buds grew lighter in color 

 before opening, the eggs grew lighter by the 

 yellower tint of the developing larvae, so 

 that they still were like the buds! It is one 

 of the most perfect bits of protective imita- 

 tion I have seen, and fully explains why I 

 had before found no eggs, but only young 

 larvae, of D. znscripta — -as these proved. 



After the first eggs found among the buds 

 I hunted every bud-cluster within easy reach 

 and found twenty more ! 



The first brood of larvae moulted but three 

 times, and fed but twenty days, the second 

 being the moult omitted. In spite of this 

 the larvae grew to full size. The second 

 brood has moulted three times at the usual 

 intervals, and will probably moult again in 

 three days. 



Caroline G. Soule. 

 Brookline, July i, iSgj. 



TO THE 

 PSYCHE. 



CRITIC OF 



The critic of Psyche is kind enough to 

 notice "the Butterflies of Hildesheim" and 

 concludes his remarks with the following 

 paragraph : 



" The scheme is based solely on the wing- 

 neuration and has its merits and demerits on 

 this ground. The most striking innovation 

 is the primary subdivision which ignores 

 pi-evious dichotomy by leaving the Hesperi- 

 idae in conjunction with others ; a minor one 

 is the separation with family signification of 

 Nemeobius from the Riodinidae; it shows 

 the length to which one may go in discussing 

 classification from a single standpoint." 



Perhaps the shortest and most complete 

 reply to the above is, that had I discussed 

 the classification of Nemeobius from a single 

 standpoint and that standpoint the neuration, 

 I should have referred the genus to the 

 Pieridae. That I did not do so, that every- 

 where I have pointed out the characters of 

 convergence in the neuration, that my study of 

 the latter is an attempt to show, however 

 imperfectly and for the first time, the direc- 

 tion which the evolution of the veining 

 assumes with the butterflies and that this 

 direction is held and the characters repeated 

 in distinct groups — ^all this seems to have 

 been overlooked by the critic. With regard 

 to Nemeobius I show th^t, while the Riodin- 

 idae are hardly separable from the Lycae- 

 nidae (Zephyrini) on pterogostic grounds, 

 the neuration of Nemeobius lucina contra- 

 dicts the same characters in both the Riodi- 

 nidae and Lycaenidae. To unite it with 

 either of these groups is to do violence to 

 characters which have been long in forming, 

 whereas to divide the Riodinidae from the 

 Lycaenidae is to lay stress, perhaps undue 

 stress, upon characters which have mani- 

 festl}' taken a shorter period to bring out. 

 By a parity of reasoning I must conclude 

 that the "family" importance of Nemeobius 

 must be granted. 



