10 THE entomologist's RECORD, ' 



best in incorporating 7'.sv'/^r/n/«)»//rt with the Picriiliilac ; the more so, as 

 it exhibits also other charactei's, already pointed out by Plotz and 

 Schatz, e.'j., the bifurcate claws, which agree with those of this 

 family. 



Nevertheless I'si'iKlopnutia, as indicated above, stands isolated 

 among the Picndulac ; its strange anomalies, at any rate, place it in 

 pretty strong contrast with the other members of this family. It 

 may, thus, be advisable and logical to consider the genus FscKdopontia, 

 a representative of a separate subfamily I'xcxdojumtiinac as distinct 

 from the subfamily Picridinac, containing all the other Picrididae 

 (excl. the anomalous genus Stjix, the position of which in this family 

 seems doubtful). As pHvudopontia, no doubt, is a survival of an old stem, 

 extinct long ago, the branching represented by the two subfamilies, 

 from the common main Pieridid trunk, must have taken place in a 

 very early phylogenetic epoch. 



Kecently Mr. Grote in tAVO articles (quoted ant<) has discussed the 

 position of Pscudnpnntia. In the former he regards this genus as " an 

 ofi'shoot of the Pierid stem," and states that " the neuration shows us 

 that there is no contradiction offered to the view that Gnnnphlchia 

 {Ps('iid()]in)itia)^ is a specialised Pierid." In the latter article he 

 would place the family constituted hy Pset(dnp(mtiaa.mong the Heajwri- 

 adcii, " considering it as a curious and modified survival of the ances- 

 tral Pierid butterflies, and having nothing at all to do with the 

 I^apiUonci^y 



For my part, I cannot find any reason for associating the genus 

 with the Hcsprriadcfi, and I cannot at all agree with the view 

 that the Picrididae should in any way be allied with the Hcapcriidac, 

 nor that the Lycaenidae should be connected with the latter family, as 

 Mr. Grote considers in a third interesting essay.'' I am strongly of 

 opinion that the Hcsprriidac have " nothing at all to do " wnth the 

 whole phyletic stem represented by the Khopolocera, i.e., that the 

 Hespcriidae " are not butterflies at all." The same view has been 

 quite recently maintained in the most decided manner by Prof. 

 Karsch.^ 



As to the relationship between the Picrididae and Papilionidae, I 

 am compelled to adhere to my former opinion. In favour of these 

 vicAVs, I have given many arguments in my book, quoted above, to 

 which I again would ask those interested in the matter to refer. 



6 The name Pseudopontia should be retained. 



7 Grote, " Die Schmetterlingsfauna von Hildesheim. ErsterTheil: Tagfalter," 

 Hildesheim, 1897. 



8 F. Karsch, " Giebt es ein System der recenten Lepidoptcren auf phyletischer 

 Basis ?" Entom. Nachr., xxiv., 1898, pp. 29G-300. 



Observations on the genus Catocala: C. pacta, &c. 



{Continued /nun Vol. X., p. 290.) 

 By E. M. DADD. 



Catocala pacta. — Ova round, rather conical above, flattened beneath ; 

 the micropylar area flattened, smaller than in the eg'j^, of ( '. electa, and 

 composed of five rings of cells. The egg measures about •04in. The 

 vertical ribs arc more prominent than in C. clocata and C. nupta, and 



