XV 
the stiffening matters in them, but, nevertheless, making holes in the 
fabric. 
The Secretary exhibited a number of beautiful coloured figures of Chinese 
Lepidoptera, executed by Mr. E. Holdsworth, of Shanghai. 
Papers read, &c. 
Mr. W. A. Lewis read a paper on the order of the groups of the Macro- 
Lepidoptera. He criticised and condemned the arrangement introduced by 
Mr. Doubleday’s List of 1859, and accompanied the statement of his views 
with a variety of comments on the modern works dealing with his subject, 
particularly Dr. Knaggs’ ‘ Cabinet List of Lepidoptera’ and Mr. Newman’s 
‘Natural History of British Moths.’ 
The paper first stated the order of arrangement by different authors from 
Linneus to the present day, the conclusion arrived at being that the 
Linnean order was followed almost without deviation by every author down 
to the year 1859; also that the Linnean names of the different groups 
were adopted very generally until the same date. Mr. Lewis remarked that 
since 1859 we in England had been subjected to the discomfort of having 
two rival systems of arrangement, the followers of neither of which take the 
smallest recognition of the other. He noticed severally the groups of 
Doubleday’s List, and stated, successively, reasons against the acceptance 
of the names Diurni, Nocturni, Drepanule and Pseudo-Bombyces; con- 
tending, in effect, that, in the case of the two first-named groups, the new 
names were, from their history, inapplicable; and as to the others, that 
both divisions had prior names. He also objected to the name “ Pseudo- 
Bombyces,” on the further ground that the scheme of classification of 
which that group forms part does not acknowledge a group ‘“ Bombyces,” 
and therefore a group “ Pseudo-Bombyces,” in the same scheme, is a 
solecism. ; 
“Mr. Lewis expressed his belief that the existence of the group Pseudo- 
Bombyces was entirely owing to the necessity, in M. Guenée’s view, of 
maintaining the order of the Noctuze which he, and other authors, had 
observed. To do this it was necessary to place them in the old position 
next after some Bombyciform genera, as the group had been arranged to 
“face towards” Bombyx. Mr. Lewis contended that the course followed 
was empirical, and was, besides, a failure, because the order of the Noctuz 
still led one to expect the Geometre at the end of the group. He con- 
tended, also, that the division of Bombyx had become a necessity when 
M. Guenée determined to place Geometra next to Bombyx without 
re-arranging Noctua, and that the part of Bombyx separated was then 
never in doubt, since Platypteryx (as everyone had remarked since 
Linneus) would easily join the Geometre and Cerure. He showed that 
M. Guenée had (in 1852) admitted that in order to give effect to the 
