Dec. 1897] GROTE: CLASSIFICATION OF LEPIDOPTERA. 159 
netic line, make large and complex cocoons. This envelop to the pupa 
is so clearly an adaptive secondary character, that in one, single, upon 
all other characters, homogeneous group, like the Emperor Moths, the 
habit runs through the entire scale, from utter absence to a specializa¬ 
tion hardly elsewhere attained, the hanging cocoons of Philosamia, 
Attacus and Callosamia. Only on paper does the sequence seen by 
Mr. Scudder exist. The specializations of the butterfly do not keep 
pace with Mr. Scudder’s imaginary series, Pieris is more specialized 
than Nymphalis , and Nymphalis than Oeneis. The differences in the 
mode of attachment are brought by Mr. Scudder into an artificial con¬ 
nection. As to the “ shrouds” of the Involuti, the utmost we can 
grant to Mr. Scudder is, that the mode of attachment in Hesperia may 
represent a stage by which the cocoon-making larva prepared itself to 
abandon this habit. To make more of the observation than this is to 
trifle. In a similar way the fact that in Thais the girdle has slipped up 
to the “nosehorn” may figure a stage between the Succincti and Sus- 
pensi. But Parnassius does not follow this lead. Among the Agape- 
tidae, Oeneis is a generalized form. The most specialized Satyrids, 
I have met with, are Pararge and Lasiommala. In these vein IV3 of 
the hind wings has effected its junction with the Cubitus. But in Oeneis 
alio this junction is not attained and vein IV3 springs still form the 
cross vein as in the mass of the more generalized forms. Oeneis belongs 
evidently to the genera allied to Erebia , in which vein I is developed, 
curved and running to a point. Herein it departs from Eumenis , in 
which this vein is blunt as in the Parargin^. The character of IV 3 
offered by Oeneis is important. It shows that this vein has not been 
fully absorbed by the system of the Cubitus, in this genus and the 
whole subfamily, Agapetinae, to which Oeneis belongs. From a study 
of the imago, Mr. Scudder’s classification is thus clearly to be rejected. 
The view that the Lycaenid Succincti are specializations of the Papili- 
onid is clearly an imaginary one. 
6. The sequence in the above table is that recommended by me to 
be followed in catalogues and collections. The tribes are omitted be¬ 
cause they are not sharply divisible. They are more or less lax group¬ 
ings of allied genera near extensions of the generic idea. Each family 
or superfamily commences with the more specialized forms. To reverse 
this order in collections or catalogues is, I believe, impracticable from 
the nature of the objects here studied. 
