22 THE REPORT OF THE [19 



it used to be called Danais Archippus, but that many authorities now hold that it should 

 be called Danais Plexippus, while Dr. Scudder calls it Anosia Plexippus, and as they say, 

 I let it go at that. 



Last year I suggested, as one of the things which such a union could deal with, the 

 question of a uniform standard method of pinning and spreading specimens, but there is 

 another point in this connection upon which a recommendation might be of some 

 service, and that is in regard to setting a fair number of specimens to show the under 

 side. Nothing has caused me greater surprise than finding large and important collections 

 of butterflies without a single underside showing. I defy anyone to separate the North 

 American species of Argynnis, Colias, Grapta, and a number of other genera from a study 

 of the upper sides only, and when I am shown ten or a dozen cabinet drawers filled with 

 specimens of Argynnis with not an underside among them, the effect is simply maddening, 

 and I am sure that an attempt to study this group under such circumstances would 

 speedily reduce me to a state of utter imbecility. In the magnificent work of Mr. Wm. 

 H. Edwards the undersides of the species treated of are invariably shown, and why they 

 should be excluded from the cabinet I cannot conceive. The failure to show the under- 

 sides of the species not only renders the study of types much more difficult but also 

 greatly endangers the types as it becomes necessary to remove the glass covers of the 

 drawers and handle the specimens in order to see the undersides. 



Another point which could with great advantage be decided by such an authority is 

 the nomenclature of the larval rings. Oonsiderable diversity has existed upon this subject, 

 some authors counting only twelve segments, excluding the head, while others, and 

 doubtless the majority of recent years, have, possibly to show their superiority to 

 antiquated superstition, made the number thirteen by counting the head as number one. 

 But one is still frequently in doubt as to which method an euthor follows until one has 

 made a careful study of the description. Would it not be better to discard both these 

 systems and follow that adopted by Dr. Scudder, and divide the larva into head, 1st, 2nd 

 and 3rd thoracic, and nine abdominal segments 1 Under such a system there could be 

 no possibility of any misunderstanding. 



Last year I ventured to assert that we should never have a natural and therefore 

 scientific and satisfactory classification of the Lepidoptera until we know them in all their 

 stages, and if this is admitted, the importance of working out the life histories becomes 

 immediately apparent. An encouraging amount of this work is now being carried on 

 though very much less than might and should be done. The reasons for the paucity of 

 this work are not very far to seek. In the first place there are not half enough entomo- 

 logists, and those that we have are generally overworked. The amateurs, like myself, are 

 generally only able to snatch a half hour or so at a time from their regular occupations 

 to do such work as describing preparatory stages, which can only be done satisfactorily by 

 daylight, while many who are much less favourably situated cannot even do that. Many, 

 unfortunately, care only for accumulating a collection of imagos, and in the case of these 

 we can only hope that they will grow from mere collectors into true entomologists, but 

 probably the chief reason why more do not take up this interesting and important work 

 is its inherent difficulty. With many species it is easy enough to secure eggs and to rear 

 the species through all their stages, but to make descriptions of those stages which shall 

 be of any use to a specialist is generally speaking a very difficult matter unless one has 

 had very special training. This is, of course, largely due to the great advance of our 

 knowbdge, the requirements of which hsve become continually more exacting. The older 

 authors, those who have been called the fathers of entomology, were certainly more com- 

 fortably off in this respect, as it seems to have been considered sufficient to give such des- 

 criptions as the following : " Senta Ulvse ; Larva, yellowish ochreous, with several fine 

 lines. In reed (Arundo Phragmitea) September, March, April," or " Xanthia Aurago ; 

 larva grey, with oblique darker streaks, on beech in May." 



Nowadays such descriptions would not do as we are expected to note and describe 

 everything, down to the minutest detail. We must begin with the egg-'aying by the parent 

 and go through all the stages to the imago. 



