THE ENTOMOLOGIST’S WEEKLY INTELLIGENCE!!. 
95 
course an interesting problem whether, if 
this insect bred from the Lotus were to 
deposit eggs on an apple-leaf the result 
would not be some other aberrant crea- 
ture, which the first captor would hold to 
be a new species till an elaborate investi- 
gation into its pedigree should show that 
it was descended from Scitella, out 
ol Lotus , by Scitella, out of apple. 
(Laughter.) 
“ Such theories would never have been 
started but for the smallness of the 
objects under discussion. 
“ I have also brought for exhibition 
two hitherto reputed distinct species of 
butterflies, of the genus Vanessa ; but as 
they are very similar in appearance, and 
feed on plants of the same natural order, 
Urticacere, perhaps the Meeting will now 
be disposed to consider Polycliloros and 
Ur tic ce as one species : it will of course 
be remarked that the flight of these two 
insects is very different, that of Poly- 
chloros being far the more powerful ; but 
then it must be borne in mind that elm 
trees grow higher than nettles, and con- 
sequently a butterfly bred from an elm 
tree might be expected to be endowed, 
on that very account, with stronger 
organs of flight. (Laughter.) 
“ I could multiply similar instances ad 
nauseam ; but really I feel that 1 am un- 
necessarily taking up the time of this 
Meeting, and I should not have recurred 
to the subject but for the number of 
young entomologists who now attend our 
Meetings, on some of whom the idea of 
gradual developments from one species 
to another might have most injurious 
effects (hear, hear), were it not briefly, 
yet effectually, exploded.” 
Mr. Westwood replied that he could 
imagine that a species which had acci- 
dentally taken to a different food, and in 
the course of generations had become 
perfectly accustomed to it, might become 
so modified by the change of diet, and 
the consequent effect on its digestive 
organs, as to appear at first sight a 
distinct species. 
Mr. Douglas remarked that in some of 
the species most closely allied, as, for in- 
stance, Cemiostoma Sparlifoliella and 
Laburnella, it was not merely that they 
fed on different plants, but the habit of 
the larvae was totally different, and it 
would be a preposterous doctrine to main- 
tain that the difference of the habit was 
the cause of the modification of the 
species, and not rather that the habit 
differed because the species were dif- 
ferent. 
Mr. Dunning appealed to Mr. Stainton 
to state wherein C. Lotella differed from 
C. Scitella, as, in the paper read, nothing 
had been said about its distinctive 
characters. 
Mr. Stainton remarked that the wings 
were narrower in the new species, the 
position of the radiating lines in the 
cilia was different, and the apical point 
from which those lines start was black in 
Lotella and tawny in Scitella. 
Mr. Dunning said he was no advocate 
for the notion of species gradually 
changing from one form to another. 
Mr. Stainton observed that Mr. West- 
wood’s remarks went fully the length of 
maintaining the development theory, and 
in further illustration of the difference of 
habits, showing closely allied species to 
be distinct, he exhibited larvae of M. Mil- 
liere’s new Coleophora Lugduniella , feed- 
ing on Vicia Cracca, and larvae of C. Vibi- 
cella, on Genista tinctoria ; the former 
larva having an ample silken cloak thrown 
over its tight-fitting black dress, and the 
latter being entirely without the cloak; 
the former larva eating- the leaves through 
into holes, and the latter blotching the 
leaves in the usual Coleoplioric fashion. 
Owing to the late hour to which the 
proceedings of the Meeting were pro- 
tracted (partly arising from the late hour 
at which the chair was taken), our re- 
porter left before the close of the Meeting, 
