From the vast array of insects that show internal wing-growth and a true pupal stage, a few larval types were chosen for description in Chapter VI, and a review of these suggests again the thought of increasing divergence between larva and imago. Reference has been made previously to the many instances in which the former has become pre-eminently the feeding, and the latter the breeding stage in the life-cycle. It seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the active, armoured campodeiform grub differing less from its parent than an eruciform larva differs from its parent, is as a larval type more primitive than the caterpillar or maggot. A. Lameere has indeed, while admitting the adaptive character of insect larvae generally, argued (1899) with much ingenuity that the eruciform or vermiform type must have been primitive among the Endopterygota, believing that the original environment of the larvae of the ancestral stock of all these insects must have been the interior of plant tissues. He is thus forced to the necessity of suggesting that the campodeiform larvae of ground-beetles or lacewings must be regarded as due to secondarily acquired adaptations; 'they resemble Thysanura and the larvae of Heterometabola only as whales resemble fishes.' There are two considerations which render these theories untenable. The Neuroptera and Coleoptera among which campodeiform larvae are common, are less specialised than Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera, and Diptera, in which they are unknown. And among the Coleoptera which as we have seen (pp. 50 _f._) display a most interesting variety of larval structure, the legless, eruciform larva characterises families in which the imago shows the greatest specialisation, while in the same life-story, as in the case of the oil-beetles (pp. 56-7), the newly-hatched grub may be campodeiform, changing to the eruciform type as soon as it finds itself within reach of its host's rich store of food.