PREFACE. t 



doptcra should not be original, but borrowed from foreign writers, many of whom (if 

 the caterpillars they describe are identical with those for which the several descriptions 

 are u/?ed by the English writers), I am afraid, allowed their vivid imaginations to 

 supply the place of sober fact." A. B. Farn in the " Entomologist "for April, 1869. 



Now this is the exact truth expressed in the mildest and most inoffensive form. 

 The writer goes on to adduce the necessary proofs of his assertions, but I will not 

 repeat them, because the assertions themselves cannot be called in question, and need 

 no corroboration. I have long since entertained the same views, and have long since 

 c en the necessity for reform. 



Ten years ago I commenced, in the monthly numbers of the Zoologist, the task 

 of describing our English caterpillars from nature ; and in the same year the Rev. H. 

 Ilarpur Crewe commenced his descriptions of those of the genus Eupithecia. In both 

 cases isolated descriptions appeared as we could find or procure the objects. This pro- 

 ceeding found little favour in the eyes of our brethren ; but I have persevered, and, 

 through the kind assistance of a few friends, have been enabled to produce minute 

 descriptions of most of our English caterpillars from the objects themselves, without 

 auy reference to prior definitions, most of which I found so vague, and named in so 

 different a manner from our own, that it was impossible to utilize them. All my own 

 descriptions, and, by his express permission, those by Mr. Crewe, are now transferred to 

 these pages, as well as a few others, written also from the objects themselves, by the 

 Rev. John Hellins, of Exeter, and Mr. Buckler, of Emsworth, gentlemen to whose 

 industry we are all greatly indebted for much valuable information in this depart- 

 ment of Natural History. 



And here, at the risk of exposing myself to the charge of irrelevant digression, I 

 cannot forbear to notice Mr. Stainton's beautiful and most useful " Natural History of 

 the Tineina." This invaluable work, commenced in 1855 and continued almost up to 

 the present time, realty leaves nothing to be desired, and acts as a severe reproach on 

 the student of the larger species, the life history of which may be studied with so 

 much greater facility. 



The classification of Lepidoptem has always been unsatisfactory : as in Hymcnoptera 

 and Diptera the most ready and obvious character for making a first division into two 

 groups, is the difference in which the union of the thoracical and abdominal segments 

 is accomplished. An insect is composed of thirteen segments, or rings, one of which 

 is the head, four constitute the chest (in science thorax), and nine the body (in science 

 abdomen}. In a very great number of insects the first segment or ring of the abdo- 

 men is slender, forming a petiole or peduncle, which gives the insect the appear- 

 ance of being almost cut in two ; a mere thread being left, which connects the two 

 halves together : a wasp exhibits this structure in perfection. In other insects the 

 thorax and body are continuous, as represented in all the figures in this work. In 

 Lepidoptera these two characters are very obvious. Butterflies (in science Lepidoptera 

 pedunculata) have the thorax and abdomen connected by a mere peduncle : Moths (in 

 science Lepidoptera sessttiventres) have no obvious division into thorax and abdomen, 



