March, 1898 ] GROTE : CLASSIFICATION OF LEP1DOPTERA. 23 



be. Vein VIII on secondaries has been retained by the two " lowest" 

 groups on the respective branches, Hemileuca and Citheronia, exactly 

 as appears most natural, in my tree, wheras in Dyar's Hemileuca goes 

 to the top. The association of Hemileuca and Automeris as equivalent 

 groups by Dyar seems, from this point of view, impossible. The whole 

 wing pattern of the Agliid branch on my tree holds together, with 

 Citheronia as its slightly dissenting feature, while the whole wing pat- 

 tern of my Saturnian branch holds together without any discordant ele- 

 ment whatever, unless the presence of VIII in Hemileuca is one, but this 

 does not prevent Dyar placing it with Automeris. So that it is possible, 

 from the neuration, to admit of three "families:" Saturniadse, Agli- 

 adce, Citheroniadae. Further than this we cannot go, and the matter 

 must be left for more light. If Aglia belongs to the Saturnian branch 

 and Hemileuca to the Automerid, then Dyar is correct, if not, then I 

 am justified. 



The strength of Dyar's argument and his system in general lies in 

 the indifferent nature of the position of the tubercles. Where such 

 ornaments or their details can be proven to be useful to the organism, 

 adaptive, they are clearly secondary and their importance fails. I 

 cannot judge of the value of the tubercle on the anal plate, but 

 must take Dyar's word for it that it is primary. So we are at a 

 deadlock. The pattern of the wing venation, not the position of 

 the movable veins, is for me primary. In this case Hemileuca dis- 

 plays the Saturnian pattern. The presence of vein VIII on second- 

 aries is subordinate in value to this. Hemileuca, from the pattern 

 of neuration, can not, by any reasonable process, have either been 

 derived from Automeris , or alongside of it, or represent its ancestor — 

 the role Dyar expects to fill, since it is less specialized. Its capabilities 

 are exceeded by one and all of these demands. Automeris, on the other 

 hand, may very well have thrown off Aglia, indeed I believe that Aglia 

 sprang from Automerid-like forms. I can also clearly see, that Saturnia 

 must have sprung from Hemileucid-like forms.] So different are Saturnia 

 and Aglia they are with difficulty compared. Citheronia, while at the 

 bottom, showing the Castnia-like pattern of Aglia and Automeris, pre- 

 sents a modification in the movement of vein IVi, analogous to the 

 Sphingidse, Pierids and Nonenbius. Attacus and Saturnia show the 

 Nymphalid movement of the meridian branches, but add to it the Pierid 

 and Lyccenid specialization of the radial branches. Rothschildia iaco- 

 boeoz has the most specialized neuration of any lepidopteron known to 

 me. On another line, the common White butterfly competes with it. 



