204 THE ENTOMOLOGIST’ S RECORD. 
suggests that this 1s so. ges ix, of course, a very important fact that A, 
in the Papilionid imago reaches the imner margin of the wing, whilst 
A, in the other butterflies does not, and the difference in direction of 
this nervure is sufficient to give considerable importance to the charac- 
ter in any system of classification ; but if, as we suggest, the nervures 
A, and A, are homologous, will the character bear the weight that 
Professor Grote seeks to put on it? In other words, does the mere 
direction of this nervure imply so much as the author asserts? The 
value which the author asserts that this difference warrants is an 
exceedingly great one, so great that in his “‘ Stammbaum ’’ he makes 
the Papmionrprs have an entirely different origin from the Hzspr- 
RIADES, Which he derives through the Trverxs from the Microprery- 
GIDES, Whilst the Parmionmprs come from an undefined and unknown 
source, quite distinct, however, so far as one can judge, from that 
postulated for the other butterflies. We wish to suggest that the 
character that our author brings forward does not. justify these con- 
clusions, and, until Professor Grote can show us that the evolution of ~ 
nervure A, is different from that of A, and that A, differs from A, in 
reality and not as a mere matter of terms, he must forgive us for not 
accepting his conclusions. What is now wanted is a series of carefully 
prepared diagrams, illustrating the point that Professor Grote urges, 
viz., that A, and A, are not homologous, made from the pups during 
development. We suspect that such a set will show, on the contrary, 
that they are homologous, and that the great difference urged by the 
author as existing between the Papintonrpres and all other butterflies, 
has, in fact, no existence. Further details based on the imagines 
will not push the matter any further. The opinion that there are 
theoretically ‘‘ four anal longitudinal nervures to the fore-wings of 
butterflies, of which the Paprnrtonipes have lost the third, and kept the 
fourth, whilst the Hesprriaprs have lost the fourth and kept the 
third,” has been repeated in a large number of journals—German, 
American, and English. To repeat this statement again and again will 
not convince us that the A. of the Hrspertaprs and A, of the Papmo- 
NIDES are not homologous. What we want ave fresh facts based on the 
pupa—and to be learned only during pupal and imaginal develop- 
ment. 
The Guests of Ants and Termites (with Plate). 
By E. WASMANN, 8.J. (translated by H. DONISTHORPE, F.Z.8., F.E.S.). 
(Concluded from p. 150.) 
There exists, as I have already mentioned, many intermediates 
between the tolerated and the genuine guests, as also between the 
tolerated and the hostile guests. Smilax pilosus ig an example, 
uniting the qualities of a protected species to the yellow hairs of a true 
guest. It even appears, according to Dr. Brauns’ observation on the 
Micro-hymenoptera, that there is a connection between true Parasitism 
and Symphilie. In many cases, therefore, it remains doubtful to 
which of the four classes an insect is to be placed even when its life- 
habits are known. Just one word about Hetaerius ferrugineus and its 
allies. What seems easier at first sight than that a small Histerid, which 
already possesses in its oval shape a kind of protection, should force the 
ants to receive it as alodger, and which would be tolerated because of its 
