20 
SOUTH-AFEICAN BUTTERFLIES. 
the Linnean Society, vol. xxiii. (1862).^ Mr. Bates's later arrangement, 
tlie details of wliicli are given at p. 176 of the Journal of Entomology 
for 1864, will be followed in this work, and the linear order stands 
thus, viz. : — 
Family I. — Nymphalid^. 
Sub-Family i. — Danainoe. 
„ 2. — Satyrince. 
„ 3. — BrassoUnce. 
,, 4. — Acrceince. 
„ 5. — Heliconince. 
„ 6. — Nymphalince. 
Family 11. — ERYCiNiDiE. 
Sub-Family i. — Lihytlmince. 
„ 2. — Stalachtmce. 
3. — ErycinincB. 
Family III. — Lyc^nid^. 
Family lY. — PAPiLiONiDiE. 
S ub- Family i . — PierincB. 
2. — Papilionince. 
Family Y. — Hesperid^. 
In this classification the Family characters employed by Mr. Bates 
are those above mentioned, viz., the structure of the fore-tarsi in both 
sexes, and the mode of suspension of the pupa. For the grouping of 
the Sub-Families of the Nyniphalidm he relies firstly on the development 
or atrophy of the lower disco-cellular nervule at the extremity of the 
discoidal cell ; secondly, on the shape and clothing of the larvae ; thirdly, 
on the clothing of the palpi ; and fourthly, on the presence or absence 
of a pre-discoidal cell in the hind-wings. He divides the three Sub- 
Families of the ErycinidcB in accordance with the mode of suspension of 
the pupa, either freely by the tail only, rigidly in an inclined position 
by the tail only, or by the tail and a girdle.^ The two Sub-Families 
^ Mr, A. E,. Wallace, whose opinion is entitled to the most careful consideration, opposed 
the removal of the Papiliomdce from the head of the Butterflies in his most excellent paper 
on the Malayan members of the Family in vol. xxv. of the same Transactions; and after I 
had, in vol. xxvi. (1869), adduced various structures in which the Papilionidce showed their 
affinity to the Moths, he argued at length, as late as 1 87 1 (see his Contributions to the Theory 
of Natural Selection, 2d edit.), in favour of their being retained at the summit of the Khopa- 
locera. But in his Geographical Distribution of Animals (vol. ii. 1876) I was glad to notice 
that he had virtually abandoned his contention, by placing (p. 479) the Family at the end of 
the series, next above the Hesperidoi. 
^ In a subsequent paper of great value on the entire Family Erycinidce [Journ. Linn. 
Soc, Zool., ix. p. 367, 186S), Mr. Bates gave up this character of the position of the pupa as 
distinctive of the Sub-Families, having found that in a species of Emesis, one of the Ery- 
cinince, the pupa was suspended as in the typical Stalachtince. He omits the Libythwince, 
and arranges the Family into Nemeobiince, Eurygonince, and Erycinince, in accordance with 
the number of branches of the subcostal nervure of the fore- wings, and (in Eurygonince) the 
position of the lower radial nervule in the hind-wings. As it is preferable, for purposes of 
classification, to depend upon the characters of the imago, it will be well to accept this 
amendment, but at the same time not to exclude the Libythaince. 
