654 
APPENDIX 
It does not appear necessary to discuss the weight of the above-noted 
characteristics. For Systematists of the old school I do not write ; for all 
others, it seems to me, the significance of such characteristics lies on the 
surface. 
One may well inquire how has it been possible, that masters of 
Lepidopterology have managed to misunderstand a relationship which, 
as I know from my own family, strikes every child at his first sight of the 
butterflies on the wing—a relationship which constantly receives fresh 
confirmation as one learns more and more of their development, life-history, 
and structure ? 
That Eueides should have been tossed to and fro between Heliconius 
and Golaenis is comprehensible, so long as these two genera were placed 
in different [sub]families. For Eueides (at least as imago, since the very 
aberrant pupa has not long been known) is barely distinguishable from 
Heliconius by the shorter antennae, and from Golaenis by the closed cell of 
the hind-wing. Furthermore, Eueides isadella and Heliconius eucrate 
\narcaea~\ on the one side, and Eueides aliphera and Golaenis julia on the 
other, bear such deceptive resemblance in the form, colour, and markings 
of the wings, that one might easily take each Eueides for a smaller specimen 
of the other species. But how it was possible to tear Golaenis away from 
Heliconius , let him understand who may. In the detailed statement of the 
generic characters given by Doubleday, one finds the sole and only important 
character which distinguishes Colaenis from Heliconius to be the open cell 
in the hind-wing of the former ; but this self-same character distinguishes 
Colaenis in exactly the same way from about 50 out of the 113 genera 
of Nymphalinae mentioned by Herrich-Schaeffer. Furthermore, Herrich- 
Schaeffer himself states that this very character is insufficient to separate 
species otherwise similar into different genera, and, in accordance with 
this opinion, he unites in the same genus Adolias , species with open, and 
others with closed cell. And yet he places Heliconius in the first, and 
Golaenis in the tenth family of his diurnal Lepidoptera ! 
Haeckel’s admonition to naturalists to ground themselves more 
thoroughly in philosophy, and especially in logic, truly appears to be 
not unnecessary. 
Itajahy, Sta. Catharina, Brazil, April, 1877. 
The following paper by Fritz Muller should also be consulted: “ Acraea and the 
Maracuji Butterflies as larvae, pupae, and imagines ” ( Kosmos , II. (1877-8), pp. 218- 
224).—E.B.P. 
