in our estimation, than those afforded by the butterfly; but generally these characters confirm each other, in other words, two caterpillars presenting the same characters produce flies which likewise partake of the same generic characters. It will no doubt be objected to us, that it is illogical to deduce characters except from the animals we are attempting to classify. We reply, that by following any other plan we must despair of attaining to a natural method. Besides, it is not necessary to be acquainted with the caterpillars of every species; it is sufficient to study a caterpillar and chrysalis of Vanessa or Pieris to have an exact idea of those of the two genera. Even though it should be very difficult to verify the characters taken from the larva, this is no reason why we should abstain from employing them. It is not merely from the fruit that botanists obtain their characters, but likewise from the flower, and even from the first developement of the vegetable embryo. The flower is to the plant what the caterpillar is to the lepidopteron, and the different modes of metamorphosis have as much value as those of inflorescence.
"It appears to us that Latreille's three divisions, taken from Linnæus—Diurnal, Crepuscular, and Nocturnal—are too inaccurate to be retained, especially the crepuscular section. The denomination Diurnal not only applies to all the known kinds of day butterflies, but also to an almost infinite number of others forming a part of the two other divisions, such as Macroglossa, Zygenides, Castniariæ,
