Phyletic Parallelism in Metamorphic Species. 449 



of Vanessa into the genus Pyrameis just mentioned, 

 on account of certain characteristic distinctions of 

 the butterflies. I do not know, however, how this 

 genus admits of being grounded on the structure 

 of the larvae ; the latter, as appears from the 

 above table, agree exactly in the number and 

 position of the spines with the caterpillars of 

 Vanessa (sensfi. strictiori), nor can any common 

 form of marking be detected which would enable 

 them to be separated from Vanessa. 



Still more striking is the incongruence in the 

 genus Araschnia, Hiibn. (A. Prorsa-Levand], 

 which, like the genus Pyrameis, is entirely based 

 on imaginal characters. This is distinguished 

 from all the other sub-genera of the old genus 

 Vanessa by a small difference in the venation of 

 the wings (the discoidal cell of the hind-wings is 

 open instead of closed). Now it is well-known 

 that in butterflies the wing-venation, as most cor- 

 rectly shown by Herrich-Schaffer, is the safest 

 criterion of " relationship." It thus happens that 

 this genus, typified by the common Levana, is in 

 Kirby's Catalogue separated from Vanessa by two 

 genera, and according to Herrich-Schaffer 18 by 

 forty genera! Nevertheless, the larvae agree so 

 exactly in their spinal formula with Grapta that 

 we should have no hesitation in regarding them 

 as a species of this sub-genus. It appears to me 



" " Prodromus Systematis Lcpidopterorum." Regensburg, 

 1*64. 



G 



