2880 THE ZooLocist—JANUARY, 1872. 
classification: at first sight, these seem likely to induce different 
results, but a more intimate acquaintance with the subject teaches 
us that a chrysalis fastened in its position by a belt passing round 
the body and head upwards produces a butterfly with six legs, 
while a chrysalis suspended by the tail head-downwards produces 
a butterfly which has but four legs: thus we have a system of 
double entry which ever verifies itself. 
There are, however, obvious similarities in the perfect insects, 
which cannot be accepted by the erudite as indicating any innate 
approximation of character, but which are very likely to mislead 
the collector of exotics, whether he work proprid manu or simply 
by purchase. Nothing could be less logical than to place side by 
side, or in the linear series which our cabinets render indispensable, 
such insects as Parnassius Stubbendorfii and Aporia Cratzgi, one 
in its metamorphosis essentially a moth, the other as essentially a 
butterfly, and yet they are so alike that they would be supposed by 
a tyro to be of the same species. We shall find later on that even 
the immortal Ray was repeatedly misled by such superficial simi- 
larities: he places his “half-mourner” (Melanagria Galathea) side by 
side with his “greenish marbled half-mourner” (Pieris Daplidice), 
the one a tetrapod, the other a hexapod, a similar distribution of 
colour leading him to this step: the female of Papilio Merope of 
Cramer, a hexapod, which is described as Papilio Hippocoon by 
Fabricius, is all but identical in appearance with Papilio Niavius, 
yet here again one is a hexapod, the other a tetrapod; Papilio 
Niavius is now an Amauris, and Godart actually describes this 
female as Danais Rechila. Numberless instances of this kind occur 
throughout the butterflies. One of the most learned and most 
distinguished entomologists, of any age, William Sharpe MacLeay, 
endeavoured to methodise these similarities and to distinguish them 
from real relationships by calling them “relations of analogy,” while 
the structural or real relationship he denominated “relations of 
affinity.” But Mr. MacLeay has not succeeded in a differentiation 
of these relations; for while no two naturalists have agreed as to 
the meaning of “ relations of analogy,” all have appeared to regard, 
and I think with much propriety, “ Relationship” and “ Affinity” 
to be synonymous terms. The Rev. William Kirby, Mr. Swainson 
and Mr. Vigors laboured most assiduously to elucidate the subject, 
but found no audience, and Mr. Westwood, following these illus- 
trious writers, spread such an impenetrable fog over the entire 
