[102]. Bees and Bee-keeping, pp. 21, 22.
[103]. Butterflies, their structure, changes, and life-histories. New York, 1881, pp. 37–42. Butterflies of the Eastern United States and Canada, 1888, 1889. Also, Frail children of the air, 1895, pp. 232, 233 a. Dr. Chapman, however, finds that this piece in micropupæ has no connection whatever with the head or eye, but belongs rather with the prothoracic segment. (Trans. Ent. Soc. London, 1893, p. 102.) We have been able to confirm his statements, but still this piece is peculiar to the pupal state.
[104]. Rep. Ent. U. S. Dept. Agr., 1879, pp. 228, 229, Pl. IV, Fig. 4.
[105]. Monograph of bombycine moths, Pt. I, 1897. Figs. 24, 28, 29, 33, 34, 40, 77.
[106]. Amer. Naturalist, xii, pp. 379–383.
[107]. Hybocampa milhauseni, Dr. Chapman tells me, has a pupal spine (imperfectly present in Cerura) with which it cuts out a lid of the cocoon.
[108]. Riley’s Report for 1892, p. 203.
[109]. Philosophy of the pupation of butterflies, and particularly of Nymphalidæ, by Charles V. Riley. (Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Science, xxviii, Saratoga Meeting, August, 1880, pp. 455–463.)
[110]. The homology of the suranal plate of the larva with the cremaster of the pupa, established by Riley in 1880, is also affirmed by Jackson (1888) and by Poulton, and for some years we have been satisfied that this is the correct view; Professor Hatchett-Jackson discovered it, he states, in 1876.
[111]. In his remarkable studies on the morphology of the Lepidoptera, Professor W. Hatchett-Jackson states his belief that Riley’s homology of the sustentors with the soles or plantæ of the anal prolegs, and the sustentor ridges with their limbs, is wrong, and that the eminences on either side the anal furrow, or the “anal prominences,” as they are termed by Riley, represent the prolegs, and that the sustentor ridges and sustentors are probably peculiar developments of the body of the 10th somite, found only in some Lepidoptera. From our examination of pupa of different families of moths, we are satisfied that Jackson’s view is the correct one. We have not found the sustentors and their ridges in the pupæ of the more generalized moths, but the vestiges of the anal legs are almost invariably present, their absence in the pupa of Nola and Harrisina being noteworthy.