^{Page no82 *} We have the expression “the highest butterflies,” meaning the Satyrinæ, repeated endlessly, sometimes twice on one page, when “Satyrinæ” would answer every purpose. It seems to me the author of the work, appealing to the reason of his readers, makes a mistake in thrusting his opinions before them so presistently. If the arguments fail to convince, what he calls by one name, will be thought to deserve quite another.

^{Page no84 *} I am informed by Prof. J. A. Lintner that suspension of pupa is very rare among the moths, but that cases occur in which certain members of a family are suspended by the tail alone, and others of same family by both tail and girdle. “In the Geometridæ, the pupa of the Ephyridæ is suspended by the tail, and in some of the species there is also a transverse girdle as in the Papilionidæ.” That is a queer state of things if one mode of suspension is more advanced than the other, or than none at all. Among the moths what are called the higher families are not suspended. Some pupate naked, some in cocoons, and neither mode implies rank.

^{Page no91 *} If, as I have supposed, the atrophy of legs originated suddenly and to fu1l extent in the type, and was perpetuated by descent, we can understand why it appears on the earliest horizon; otherwise, not. But if it was a malformation from the first, no degree of perpetuation would change its character.

^{Page no92 *} There is no evidence whatever that a butterfly sprang from a moth, and it is a fair proposition that all families of the Lepidoptera, diurnal, crepuscular, nocturnal, came from a common parent, and were developing at same time, each in its own way. This calls for vastly less time than the fishing-pole style of evolulion.

^{Page no93 *} Here is another character which could not have passed into the Papilionidæ from the Hesperidæ. Whether the “common stock” had it no man can tell.