38 BULLETIN BRUOKLYN ENPOM. SOC. VOL. VE. August 1383. | 
Primarily the Lepidoptera are divided into two Divisions. 
Antennze clubbed at tip ; primaries at least and usually all wings elevated in repose 
: Rhopalocera. 
Antennae not clubbed at tip ; wings never continuously elevated in repose..Heterocera. 
In some exotic species the antennx are hardly perceptibly clubbed 
and in some Ge metridae the wings are elevat2d, but never as persistently 
during long rest as in the Ahopalocera or diurmals as they are usually 
called. No American species of butterfly departs from the characters 
above given. 
The diurnals are divided into families of very different extent and 
value—the number recognized by different authors varying, one consider- 
ing the families of another as mere subfamilies. Mr. W. H. Edwards 
recognizes five in our fauna which may be distinguished as follows. 
Head moderate, antennze approximate at base not ho»ked or a_utely terminated at tip, 
all wings elevated in repose. 
Imago with six fuliy developed legs in both sexes, chrysalis anzular girthed at 
mid dlemlanvereloncateismOoothl . sane seers ees) e ot -0-o susie ieee Papilionidac. 
Imago with anterior tarsi aborted in both sexes, usually exarticulate in the cf’; tibia 
weak often brush like, chrysalis angular suspended by tail, larva often spined. 
Nymphalidae. 
Imago with complete but weak anterior tarsim ©. exarticulate and not spined in <j’ 
HATO Dll) ln (eaves tallota, lormmsia WWE | 55. o5 Sco cob oocscoccu couse Erycinidae. 
Imago with anterior tarsi of Q complete, of ¢j' weak and spinulated, often only one 
or two jointed, or if 5 jointed then never with complete claws at tip, chrysalis 
subulate, girthed at middle, larva onisciform.................--. Lycaenidae. 
Head very wide, antennze very widely seperated at base, usually hooked or acutely 
terminated at tip, primaries always elevated in repose secondaries often horizon- 
tal 6 perfect feet in both sexes, larva smooth with first segment corneous, chry- 
Salis often ispinminesaiCOOCOON!. |), Meee ks. oe oe Hesperidae. 
Of these I consider the Papilionidae, Nymphalidae, and Hesperidie as 
entitled to family rank ; the L7ycimzdae are not sufficiently distinguished 
from the Lycaenidae and they in turn are through the former family closely 
related to the Nymphalidae. As an illustration, the genus Mumaeus may 
be cited which is placed by some authors in the Lycaenidae and by others 
in the Zryemzdae. For convenience I retain all the families, I have 
placed the Papilonzdae first in the list though most systematists accord to 
the Nymphalidae that rank. ‘The discussion of the question of rank is 
not pertinent to the object of this paper, and I will only say that in my 
opinion the development of the Papzlionidae, is quite as high in one di— 
rection as that of the Wymphaldae is in another, Iam aware of all the 
larval and pupal characters relied on by the advocates of both theories 
and of the characters of the imago made use of by them. 
