INSECTS ERRONEOUSLY REFERRED TO BUTTERFLIES. 91 



covered; the most ancient previously known to science having been found in the 

 Cretaceous series (white sandstone of Aix-la-Chapelle^), whilst the bulk of the 

 known species are from the Lower Miocene beds of Croatia; it is also interesting 

 as belonging to the highest family of butterflies, and to a subfamily intermediate 

 in [127] character between two others, namely, the Satyrinae and Nymphalinse, 

 whilst the more recently discovered fossils are referable, with one exception, to the 

 two latter groups. The nervures appear to have been impregnated with iron, which 

 will partly account for their well-defined condition." 



Happening to be in London not long after the publication of the description 

 and illustration of this insect, I took pains to make a very careful examination 

 both of the original specimen, which Mr. Charlesworth kindly allowed me to study 

 at my leisure, and of its reverse, which is preserved in the School of Mines, 

 Jennyn street. I mentioned to Mr. Butler and to others, my conviction that the 

 insect was to be considered homopterous rather than lepidopterous, and on my 

 return to America, exhibited before the Natural History Society of Boston, draw- 

 ings which I had made from the originals; my comments at that time were pub- 

 lished very briefly, as I was reserving the proof of my statements for the present 

 paper. Mr. Butler, however, was induced by this publication '^ to examine the re- 

 verse at the Jermyn street Museum, and although he had been supplied by me with 

 a rough tracing of the drawing I had taken of it, he failed to be convinced of 

 any mistake, and published a paper in defence of his own view in the Geological 

 Magazine for October, 1874. In this paper he gives new drawings of the insect, 

 quotes portions of letters in which I had expressed my opinions upon the nature 

 of the fossil, gives the remarks referred to from the " Proceedings of the Boston 

 Society of N'atural History," and makes, among others, the following comments. 



" Seeing that Mr. Scudder had made his views public, I felt that it was time 

 for me to take similar steps on my side. I therefore availed myself of an early 

 opportunity of again visiting Jermyn street, where, through the courtesy of the 

 officers, I was enabled to make a sketch of the impression in the Museum. I 



> Perhaps Sfr. Butler is not aUojrether to blame in confonnding Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, VI, 72; 

 Alx in Proyence with Aix-la-Chapelle; at any rate the mistake the error is corrected by Mr. Butler at the end of his volume. 

 bad b«cn made previously by the translator of Ileer's paper in the ' He seems not to have seen the earlier publication of Mr. Brodie. 



