Fig. 3.
Cyllonium Hewitsonianum Westw.
I have not been able to find, even with Mr. Brodie’s help, the first specimen referred to; but an examination of the original of the latter (see fig. 3) proved that, while it is unquestionably an insect, it cannot be referred to the Lepidoptera; the punctures referred to are both too large and much too irregularly disposed to have been the points of insertion of the scales; they are probably the marks of the insertion of hairs, such as are not uncommonly seen irregularly scattered over the wings of insects belonging to the other suborders. As the figure of the first species closely resembles in this particular the one I have seen, I am forced to the conclusion that neither of these wings are lepidopterous. Plainly, the only reason why a new generic name was appended to these forms was that their remains were too fragmentary to afford the slightest guess as to what modern genus they might be referred. The fossils came from the English Purbecks.
2. Palæontina oolitica Butl.
The first notice I find of this remarkable and very interesting fossil is that published in various literary and scientific London journals reporting remarks given at a meeting of the Entomological Society of London, and which afterward appeared as follows in their Proceedings:[AZ]
“Mr. Butler exhibited a remarkably perfect impression of the wing of a fossil butterfly in the Stonesfield slate. It appeared to be most nearly allied to the now existing South American genus Caligo.”
Fig. 4.
Palæontina oolitica Butl. The neuration, after Butler’s first sketch.