Butterflies and Moths (British)Furneaux, William S.
Science
Butterflies and Moths (British)
Furneaux, William S.
Butterflies -- Great Britain; Moths -- Great Britain
This, then, shall form the subject of the next short chapter.
CHAPTER V
_CLASSIFICATION OF THE LEPIDOPTERA_
The _Lepidoptera_ are divided into two very unequal groups, to which we
have so frequently alluded as 'Butterflies' and 'Moths.' And, although
these two terms are popularly applied in a fairly accurate manner, yet,
strange to say, very few persons indeed have any definite knowledge of
the differences that entomologists recognise between the two groups.
Every entomologist has his circle of sympathetic and, perhaps, even
admiring friends. Consequently, many a little package is sent round to
his abode 'with great care,' accompanied by a note or a message
concerning the fine 'butterfly I have just caught, and thought you would
like to add to your collection.'
The 'butterflies' that so frequently reach us through these channels
nearly always turn out to be _brightly coloured_ moths, and this
naturally gives one the idea that the popular notion as to the
classification of the _Lepidoptera_ is based on colour or brilliancy of
design, the term 'butterfly' being applied to the gayer species, and
'moth' to the more dingy members of the race.
There is really some shadow of a reason in this method of nomenclature,
for butterflies _are usually_ more brightly clad than moths; but the
scientific classification, at least as far as the main divisions and
subdivisions are concerned, has nothing whatever to do with colour or
design; and we must at once acquaint ourselves with the fact that there
_are_ very dingy butterflies, and most beautiful and highly coloured
moths.
How shall we account for the fact that the specimens so kindly sent us
by our friends are generally moths? Is it because moths are more
numerous and more frequently seen? They are certainly more numerous;
for, while our butterflies do not number seventy species, the other
division contains about two thousand. Yet, in spite of this fact, moths
are not generally observed as much as butterflies, for the former are
nearly all night-fliers, and the latter _always_ fly by day and rest by
night.
Still our question remains unanswered. The reason is this. The captives
sent us are seldom caught on the wing. Most of our grown-up friends,
even though they admire our own pluck and general carelessness
concerning the remarks of the spectators of our entomological antics,
would not themselves like to be seen, hat in hand, chasing a butterfly;
and the night-flying moths are, of course, less frequently observed. But
they often, in the course of their daily employments, meet with a large
moth fast asleep in some corner of a dwelling house, workshop, or
outhouse. Such moths are easily caught while in the midst of their
slumbers, and, as they often make no attempt to fly by day, are as
easily transferred to a box suitable for transmission by messenger or by
post.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account