84 



which was pubHshed in 1898, followed Meyrick, and working 

 on his basis made the Arctiida with the closely allied 

 SyntomidcP the most highly specialized families, the latter 

 being really but highly developed Arctiids. The two tables 

 of phylogeny, or schemes of descent, as given by Meyrick, 

 and later by Hampson, are with slight differences substantially 

 the same. Most unfortunately, in this respect of phylogeny 

 both are, and must be, hopelessly wrong by being based on 

 one character only. 



We have in Hampson's table Sphingidcs developed from 

 Notodontidce, and Lyuiantriida: and Noctuidce developed from 

 SphingidcE ; families with flat eggs, with a micropyle at one 

 end, and upright eggs with the micropyle at the top, alter- 

 nately giving place to one another. This manifestly could not 

 be true in the case of such an immutable character as the 

 tgg, and entomologists have refused to accept such a scheme 

 of phylogeny from the one-character neuration. But this 

 matter of phylogeny only needed adjustment ; the facts are 

 still facts, onl}' our interpretation of them now is different. 

 Some of the more palpable errors in Hampson's and Mexrick's 

 works have made many condemn the system of neuration as 

 unreliable. That which was bad has largely overshadowed 

 that which was good. British entomologists who knew 

 most of the life-histories of their species were in a position 

 to severely criticize the " Handbook," and could afford to 

 do without it so far as classifying their material was concerned; 

 and I think it is largely owing to this reason that we find 

 comparatively few British entomologists who have taken the 

 trouble to give neuration the study it deserves. Workers at 

 less well known species have been compelled to rely on 

 imaginal characters in the absence of life-histories. 



Before discussing the neurational details of any species 

 or groups, it will be as well to say a word about the naming 

 or numbering of the veins. The newer method is that of 

 naming the veins, or rather the principal veins, and calling 

 the subsidiary veins branches i, 2, or 3, as the case may 

 be, of those veins. There are by this method costal, 

 subcostal, radial, median, and submedian veins. The costal 

 vein alone is always singly represented. The subcostal 

 can have as many as five branches. The radial veins are 

 usually three in number, but sometimes two or even only 

 one. The median has two branches, and the submedian 

 can have one, two, or three veins. By the older method 

 each vein has a number, the fore-wing having twelve h}'po- 

 thetical veins and the hind-wing eight hypothetical veins. 



