An especially striking instance of incongruence is offered by the two species of Chærocampa most common with us, viz., Elpenor and Porcellus, the large and small Elephant Hawk-moths. The larvæ are so similar, even in the smallest details of marking, that they could scarcely be identified with certainty were it not that one species (Elpenor) is considerably larger and possesses a less curved caudal horn than the other. The moths of these two species much resemble one another in their dull green and red colours, but differ in the arrangement of these colours, i. e. in marking, and also in the form of their wings, to such an extent that Porcellus has been referred to the genus Pergesa23 of Walker. If systemy, as is admitted on many sides, has only to indicate the morphological relationship, this author is not to blame – but in this case a special larval classification must likewise be admitted, in a manner somewhat similar to that at present adopted provisionally in text-books of zoology for the Hydroid Polypes and inferior Medusæ. This case of Porcellus, however, shows that those are correct who maintain that systemy claims to express, although incompletely, the blood-relationship, and that systematists have always unconsciously formed their groups as though they intended to express the genetic connection of the forms. Only on this supposition can it appear incorrect to us to thus separate two species of which the larvæ agree so completely.
I cannot conclude this review of the various systematic groups without taking a glance at the groups comprised within species, viz. varieties. Whilst in species incongruence is of frequent occurrence, in varieties this is the rule, for which reason it admits in this case of being more sharply defined, since we are not concerned with a double difference but only with the question whether in the one stage a difference or an absolute similarity is observable. By far the majority of varieties are either simply imaginal or merely larval varieties – only the one stage diverges, the other is quite constant.
Thus, as has already been shown, in all the seasonally dimorphic butterflies known to me the caterpillars of the two generations of imagines, which are often so widely different, are exactly alike; and the same obtains for the majority of purely climatic varieties of butterflies. Unfortunately there are as yet no connected observations on this point. The only certain instance that I can here mention is that of the Alpine and Polar form of Pteris Napi. This variety, Bryoniæ, the female of which differs so greatly in marking and colouring, possesses larvæ which cannot be distinguished from those of the ordinary form of Napi.(See part I. appendix I. p. 124.)
That caterpillars can also vary locally without thereby affecting the imagines is shown by the frequently mentioned and closely investigated cases of di- and polymorphism in the larvæ of a number of Sphingidæ (M. Stellatarum, A. Atropos, S. Convolvuli, C. Elpenor, and Porcellus, &c.). The same thing is still more clearly shown by those instances in which there are not several but only one distinct larval form occurring in each of two different localities.
To this class belongs the above-mentioned case of Chærocampa Celerio (p. 197), supposing our information concerning this species to be correct; likewise the recently-mentioned case of the Ligurian variety of the caterpillar of Saturnia Carpini; and finally the case of Eriogaster Lanestris, so well known to lepidopterists. This insect inhabits the plains of Germany, and in the Alps extends to an elevation of 7000 feet, where it possesses a larva differently marked and coloured (E. Arbusculæ) to those of the lowlands whilst the moths are smaller, but do not differ in other respects from those of the plains.
Among the Alpine species many other such cases may occur, but these could only be discovered by making investigations having special reference to this point. Of the Alpine butterflies, for example, not a single species can have been reared from the caterpillar; for this reason but few observations have on the whole been given by entomologists respecting the Alpine larvæ, which are not known sufficiently well to enable such a question to be decided.
The investigation of the form-relationships existing between larvæ on the one hand and imagines on the other has thus led to the following results: —
We learn on comparison that incongruences or inequalities of form-relationship occur in all systematic groups from varieties to families. These incongruences are of two kinds, in some cases being disclosed by the fact that the larvæ of two systematic groups, e. g. two species, are more closely related in form than their imagines (or inversely), whilst in other cases the larvæ form different systematic groups to those formed by the imagines.
The results of the investigation into the occurrence of incongruences among the various systematic groups may be thus briefly summarised: —
Incongruences appear to occur most frequently among varieties, since it very frequently happens that it is only the larva or only the imago which has diverged into a variety, the other stage remaining monomorphic. The systematic division of varieties is thus very often one-sided.
Among species also incongruences are of frequent occurrence. Sometimes the imagines are much more nearly related in form than the larvæ, and at others the reverse happens; whilst again the case appears also to occur in which only the one stage (larva) diverges to the extent of specific difference, the other stage remaining monomorphic (D. Euphorbiæ and Nicæa).
The agreement in form-relationship appears to be most complete in genera. In the greater number of cases the larval and imaginal genera coincide, not only in the sharpness of their limits, but also – as far as one can judge – in the weight of their distinctive characters, and therefore in the amount of their divergence. Of all the systematic groups, genera show the greatest congruence.
In families there is again an increase of irregularity. Although larval and imaginal families generally agree, there are so many exceptions that the groups would be smaller if they were based exclusively on the larval structure than if founded entirely on the imagines (Nymphalidæ, Bombycidæ).
If we turn to the groups of families we find a considerably increased incongruence; complete agreement is here again rather the exception, and it further happens in these cases that it is always the larvæ which, to a certain extent, remain at a lower grade, and which form well defined families; but these can seldom be associated into groups of a higher order having a common character, as in the case of the imagines (Rhopalocera).
After having thus collected (so far as I am able) the facts, we have now to attempt their interpretation, and from the observed congruence and incongruence of form-relationship of the two stages to endeavour to draw a conclusion as to the underlying causes of the transformations.
It is clear at starting that all cases of incongruence can only be the expression or the consequence of a phyletic development which has not been exactly parallel in the two stages of larva and imago – that one stage must have changed either more rapidly or more slowly than the other. An “unequal phyletic development” is thus the immediate cause of incongruence.
Thus, the occurrence of different larvæ in species of which the imagines have remained alike may be simply understood as cases in which the imago only has experienced a change – has taken a forward step in phyletic development, whilst the larvæ have remained behind. If we conceive this one-sided development to be repeated several times, there would arise two larval forms as widely different as those of Deilephila Nicæa, and Euphorbiæ, whilst the imagines, as is actually the case in these species, would remain the same.
The more commonly occurring case in which one stage has a greater form-divergence than the other, is explicable by the one stage having changed more frequently or more strongly than the other.
The explanation of the phenomena thus far lies on the surface, and it is scarcely possible to advance any other; but why should one stage become changed more frequently or to a greater extent than the other? why should one portion be induced to change more frequently or more strongly than another? whence come these inducements to change? These questions bring us to the main point of inquiry: – Are the causes which give rise to these changes internal or external? Are the latter the result of a phyletic vital force, or are they only due to the action of the external conditions of life?
Although an answer to this question will be found