1159 
It is therefore the more remarkable that Tower (1906) met with 
two vertical ranges of spots on the abdominal segments of Leptino- 
tarsa-larvae, each consisting of three spots. 
Comparing to this the setal pattern Type I [which I described 
in my former communication as consisting of a row of setae above 
the stigma, composed of s.s. dorsalis, dorsolateralis and. suprastig- 
malis|, a great similarity in design between these larvae, otherwise 
so different, may be remarked. 
But only an extensive investigation of the greatest possible numbers 
of larvae of different orders, especially the youngest instars, will 
lead to conclusive evidence on the question whether the pattern, 
distinguished by me, really possesses a generai meaning for all holo- 
metabolic insects. It will be important to compare it to fossil remains 
of insects, supposing this to be possible. As far as [ can see, Hanp- 
LirscH’s doubts about a monophyletic origin of Holometabola are 
well founded. | ; 
On one point, which in my previous publication I only touched 
slightly, I wish to dwell a little longer. 
In 1912 J. F. van BrEMMELEN called attention to the correspondence 
in design between pupae of different Rhopalocera and a fullgrown 
caterpillar of Pieris brassicae L. Though this similarity between 
the markings of larva and pupa had already been remarked in a 
single case by Pourron (1890), he had explained it by assuming 
the larval pigment to remain for a certain period unaltered in the 
pupal skin, and thus giving origin to a temporary or a lasting 
design. VAN BreMMELEN objects.to this that such an explanation will 
not do in cases where the larvae are very different from each other, 
while the pupae show an almost identical pattern, e. g. Pieris 
brassicae and P.napi and Huchloe cardamines, especially as he. was 
able to show that this same pattern also occurred in other Rhopa- 
locerous pupae. He therefore took this phenomenon to be an affir- 
mation of the opinion, which sees in the pupae a subimaginal 
stage reduced to immobility. 
Moreover I wish to call attention to LAMERRE’s assertion (1900), 
that the hypodermis is totally renewed during the pupal period. 
For me vAN BEMMELEN’s opinion possesses greater probability than 
that of Pounron, the pupal design being of real morphological im- 
portance. As stated in my former note, the pupal pattern is almost 
completely similar to that of the first instar of the larva. 
Starting from the observation that in Rhopalocerous pupae provided 
with a colour pattern this pattern is almost identical in a great 
many genera and taking into consideration, that the first deposition 
