18 



have a similar row of pits, which enlarge till they meet across from 

 segment to segment, and form a groove very like that of Erycinids, 

 and accompanied by two other grooves or pits in the subfamily 

 Dismorphiina. 



The great Nymphalid family in all its branches has two grooves 

 bounded by three very definite raised ridges or carina;. This is a 

 most unmistakable character, by which a. nymphalid antenna may 

 always be recognised. 



Dr. Jordan derives the pierid antenna from that of the Erycinids. 

 Apart from its general improbability, and the absence of any inter- 

 mediate forms in other characters, which would certainly be found if 

 Pierids sprung, as Dr. Jordan's theory requires, from the higher 

 Erycinids, there are inherent difficulties. 



One point is that the depression in Erycinids is always a groove, 

 keeping its full width along the joints of the antenna, whilst the 

 depressions in Pieris are pits that coalesce to form a groove, and 

 almost always the groove shows traces of this by narrowing at the 

 edges of the segments. 



A feature of butterfly antennae I have not alluded to yet is the 

 differentiation in area of the hairs and the pits and rods of Bodine 

 ("punctures" of Jordan), and the great abundance of the latter in 

 the most specialised antennas. This does not occur in Hesperids 

 or Lycaenids, but is very marked in Papilios, Pierids, and Nym- 

 phalid s. 



In Pierids and Nymphalids the hairs are always aggregated within 

 the pits or grooves, and only punctures occur outside them, and the 

 two areas are sharply defined from each other. The Erycinids show 

 some of this differentiation, but it is rarely, if at all, complete ; hairs 

 and punctures are more or less intermixed, punctures are compara- 

 tively scarce, and hairs always occur outside the grooves. 



These difficulties in the way of Dr. Jordan's classification of 

 Pierids are not, perhaps, very conclusive in themselves, though they 

 seem stronger than Dr. Jordan's case in support of it. But they 

 seem to be overwhelming when we remember that we have, outside 

 the antenna, nothing in support of it, and a phalanx of facts pointing 

 the other way. 



It may be useful to summarise the lines of antennal evolution here 

 suggested : 



i. The primitive pre-lepidopterous antenna?, with sense-hairs regu- 

 larly distributed (Panorpa, etc.). 



2. The primitive lepidopterous antenna;, with hairs as in i, but 

 with scales uniformly distributed amongst them. 



3. From this various lines of evolution — as (a) Lampronia capi- 

 tella and rubiella, in which the scales largely disappear except towards 

 the base dorsally ; (/>) Nepticula, in which a single row of scales com- 

 pletely encircles the antenna, and hairs are not visible ; (c) the 

 main line, in which the hairs and scales separated themselves into 

 alternate rows, two of each occupying each joint of the antenna, thus 



