51 
Papilionidz, which two groups hang together, compare favourably 
with the Nymphalidze, in which the radius is always five-branched, 
and which have not lost vein VIII of the secondaries. Alone in 
the direction of the suppression of the media are the Nymphalids 
clearly advanced and ahead. 
Leaving these instances of general application, we come to the 
lessons to be derived from our studies in the direction of genera and 
groups having these genera as their bases, groups having the genus 
as the unit, just as the genus has the species, the species the indi- 
vidual. And here we shall both more easily illustrate the use of 
our observations and subserve the earnestness and honesty of science 
if we review what has been recently published without this knowledge 
—published with the air of possessing it, and going wrong with a 
great show of going right. 
In Mr. Meyrick’s recently published ‘Handbook of British 
Lepidoptera” we find no higher grouping of the genera of the 
meadow browns, the Agapetidz or Satyridee, such as we have seen 
above to be warranted from a study of the neuration of the 
secondaries. Further, we find a genus Pararge, which contains two 
species, P. egeria and P. megera. Now these two species belong to the 
group of meadow browns which we have called Pararginge, and in which 
the cross-vein of hind-wings joins vein V 1, although they differ between 
themselves sufficiently structurally to warrant our calling the second 
species Lastommata megera.* Not only is the value of the character 
of the hind-wings lost by placing them between genera (Sat¢yrus, Melan- 
argia) which do not possess it, but we are favoured on the preceding 
page with a phylogenetic tree in which Parvarge is derived froma genus 
(Epinephele) which does not possess the character (which is credible), 
but gives birth to a genus (AZe/anargia) which is just like the pre- 
sumed ancestor (Zfznephele) in also not possessing it (which is 
simply incredible). And it is the same with all the phylogenies of 
Mr. Meyrick that I have been able to examine at all carefully. The 
reason for this is plain: Mr. Meyrick is without any gauge to measure 
specialisation, hence his approximations rest on opinion more or less 
idle. The same objection applies to his phylogeny of the day 
butterflies and of the Nymphalide. Not one of the figures of 
neuration given by Mr. Meyrick appears to me correct, so far as I 
have been able to compare the originals. Nota few of them (for 
instance, among the day butterflies those of edusa, adippe, and sy/vanus) 
are caricatures. For any purposes of study they are inexact and 
misleading. ‘The delicate differences cannot be given by such loose 
sketches, and it is perhaps natural that Mr. Meyrick’s text hardly 
* It is a want of ordinary discrimination which allows Mr. Meyrick to 
associate these species in a single genus, and which also permits him to classify 
Brephos among the ‘ Monocteniadz.”’ There are, however, many rules of 
nomenclature which he breaks, and many common-sense conclusions as to 
analogy and affinity which he affronts in the ‘‘ Handbook.’ There is no 
warrant in Darwinism for his blind treatment of a class of facts as to which 
any collector is better informed. 
