Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms For Cad Christian Gentil Full Chapter

Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms
for CAD Christian Gentil

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/geometric-modeling-of-fractal-forms-for-cad-christian-
gentil/
Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms for CAD
Geometric Modeling and Applications Set
coordinated by
Marc Daniel
Volume 5
Geometric Modeling of
Fractal Forms for CAD
Christian Gentil
Gilles Gouaty
Dmitry Sokolov
First published 2021 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced,
stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

27-37 St George’s Road 111 River Street
London SW19 4EU Hoboken, NJ 07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2021

The rights of Christian Gentil, Gilles Gouaty and Dmitry Sokolov to be identified as the authors of this
work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021932086
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-040-9
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Chapter 1. The BC-IFS Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1. Self-similarity and IFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1. Mathematical definitions and reminders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1.2. Self-similarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.1.3. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.1.4. Iterated function systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.1.5. Visualization and approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.1.6. Computer implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.1.7. Notions of address and parameterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.1.8. Finite address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.1.9. IFS morphisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.1.10. Example of a curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.1.11. The example of the Sierpinski triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.2. Controlled iterated function system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.2.1. Formalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
1.2.2. Visualization and approximation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
1.2.3. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.3. Boundary controlled iterated function system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
1.3.1. Attractors defined from a set of control points . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.3.2. Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
1.3.3. Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.3.4. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1.3.5. Topology control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1.3.6. Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
1.3.7. Evaluation tree and quotient graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
vi Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms for CAD
1.3.8. Constraint resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

1.3.9. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
1.3.10. Control of the local topology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1.3.11. Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
1.3.12. Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
1.3.13. Choice of the display primitive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
1.3.14. Choice of dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
1.3.15. Choice of geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
1.3.16. Primitive property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
1.3.17. BC-IFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Chapter 2. Design Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

2.1. Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
2.2. Wired structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
2.3. Surfaces and laces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
2.3.1. Quadrangular subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
2.3.2. Triangular subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.3.3. Other regular polygonal subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.3.4. The Sierpinski triangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
2.3.5. Penrose tilings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2.4. Volumes and lacunar objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
2.5. Tree structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
2.5.1. Basic example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
2.5.2. Basic example with an undivided trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
2.5.3. Example by tiling the space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
2.6. Form assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Chapter 3. Surface NURBS, Subdivision Surfaces and BC-IFS . . . 129

3.1. Bezier curves and surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
3.2. Uniform B-spline curves and surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.3. Generalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.3.1. Polynomial curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
3.3.2. Rational curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.4. NURBS curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.4.1. Knot-doubling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
3.4.2. Curve subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
3.4.3. Surface subdivision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
3.5. Subdivision curves and surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
3.5.1. Subdivision curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
3.5.2. Subdivision surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Contents vii
Chapter 4. Building Operations, Assistance to Design

and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
4.1. Topological consistency and symmetry constraints . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.1.1. Orientation constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
4.1.2. Permutation operators and symmetry constraints . . . . . . . . . . . 170
4.2. Topological combination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.2.1. Topological tensor product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
4.2.2. Example of surface generation from curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
4.2.3. Volume generations from curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.2.4. Generation of the tree structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
4.3. Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.3.1. Interaction between representation models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
4.3.2. Structure optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
4.3.3. Roughness and space refilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
4.3.4. The design of a heat exchanger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Preface
This work introduces a model of geometric representation for describing and

manipulating complex non-standard shapes such as rough surfaces or porous
volumes. It is aimed at students in scientific education (mathematicians, computer
scientists, physicists, etc.), engineers, researchers or anyone familiar with the
mathematical concepts addressed at early stages of the graduate level. However,
many parts are accessible to all, in particular, all introductory sections that present
ideas with examples. People with no prior background, whether they are artists,
designers or simply curious, will be able to understand the philosophy of our
approach, and discover a new universe of unsuspected and exciting forms.
Geometric representation models are mathematical tools integrated into

computer-aided geometric design (CAGD) software. They make the production of
numerical representations of forms possible. By means of graphical interfaces or
programming tools, users can draw and/or manipulate these shapes. They can also
test or evaluate their physical properties (mechanical, electro-magnetic, acoustic, etc.)
by communicating geometric descriptions to further specific numerical simulation
software.
The geometric representation model we present here is based on the fractal

geometry paradigm. The principle behind this consists of studying the properties
(signal, geometry, phenomena, etc.) at different scales and identifying the invariants
from there. The objects are described as self-referential between two scales: each of
the object features (namely, the lower scale level) is described as a reference to the
object itself (namely, the higher scale). This approach is not conventional and often
confusing at first. We come to perceive its richness and power very quickly, however.
The universe of forms that can possibly be created is infinite and has still only
partially been explored.
In this book, we present the mathematical foundations, so that the reader can
access all the information to understand, test and make use of this model. Properties,
x Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms for CAD
theorems and construction methods are supplemented with algorithms and numerous
examples and illustrations. Concerning the formalization, we have chosen to use
precise and rigorous mathematical notations to remove any ambiguity and make
understanding easier.
Readers unwilling to be concerned with mathematical formalisms can get to grips

with the philosophy of our approach by focusing on the sections found at the
beginnings of the chapters, in which ideas and principles are intuitively presented,
based on examples.
This book is the result of 25 years of research carried out mainly in the LIRIS
laboratories of the University of Lyon I and LIB of the University of Burgundy
Franche-Comté. This research was initiated by Eric Tosan, who was instrumental at
the origin of this formalism and to whom we dedicate this work.
Christian G ENTIL
Gilles G OUATY
Dmitry S OKOLOV
February 2021
Introduction
I.1. Fractals for industry: what for?
This book shows our first steps toward the fundamental and applied aspects of
geometric modeling. This area of research addresses the acquisition, analysis and
optimization of the numerical representation of 3D objects.
a) 3D model b) 3D printing
Figure I.1. 3D tree built by iterative modeling (source:

project MODITERE no. ANR-09-COSI-014)
Figure I.1 shows an example of a structure that admits high vertical loads, while
minimizing the transfer of heat between the top and bottom of the part. Additive
manufacturing (3D printing) allows, for the first time, the creation of such complex
objects, even in metal (here with a high-end laser printer EOS M270). This type of
technology will have a high societal and economic impact, enabling better systems to
be created (engines, cars, airplanes, etc.), designed and adapted numerically for
optimal functionality, thus consuming less raw material, for their manufacturing, and
energy, when used.
xii Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms for CAD
Current computer-aided design is, however, not well suited to the generation of
such types of objects. For centuries, for millennia, humanity has produced goods with
axes, files (or other sharp or planing tools), by removing bits from a piece of wood or
plastic. Tools subsequently evolved into complex numerical milling machines.
However, at no point during these manufacturing processes did we need sudden stops
or permanent changes in the direction of the cutting tool. The patterns were always
“regular”, hence the development of mathematics specific to these problems and our
excellent knowledge of the modeling of smooth objects. This is why it was necessary
to wait until the 20th century to have the mathematical knowledge needed to model
rough surfaces or porous structures: we were just not able to produce them earlier.
Thus, since the development of computers in the 1950s, computer-aided geometric

design (CAGD or CAD) software has been developed to represent geometric shapes
intended to be manufactured by standard manufacturing processes. These processes
are as follows:
– subtractive manufacturing, using machine tools such as lathes or milling
machines;
– molding, where molds themselves are made using machine tools;
– deformation-based manufacturing: stamping or swaging (but again, dies are
usually manufactured using machine tools), folding, etc.;
– cutting, etc.
Each of these processes imposes constraints, for example, concerning collision

issues in milling machines (even a five-axis mill cannot produce any geometry).
These manufacturing processes inevitably influenced the way we design the
geometries of objects, in order to actually manufacture them. For example, CAD
software has integrated these design methodologies by developing appropriate
numerical models or tools. Currently, most CAD software programs are based on the
representation of shapes by means of surfaces defining their edges. These surfaces
are usually described using a parametric representation called non-uniform rational
B-spline (NURBS). These surface models are very powerful and very practical. It is
possible to represent any volume enclosed by a quadric (cylinders, cones, spheres,
etc.) and complex shapes, such as car bodies or airplane wings. They were originally
designed for this.
However, the emergence of additive manufacturing techniques has caused an

upheaval in this area, opening up the possibility of potentially “manufacturable”
forms. By removing the footprint constraint of the tool, it then becomes possible to
produce very complex shapes with gaps or porosity. These new techniques have
called into question the way objects are designed. New types of objects, such as
porous objects or rough surfaces, can have many advantages, due to their specific
physical properties. Fractal structures are used in numerous fields such as
Introduction xiii
architecture (Rian and Sassone 2014), jewelry (Soo et al. 2006), heat and mass
transport (Pence 2010), antennas (Puente et al. 1996; Cohen 1997) and acoustic
absorption (Sapoval et al. 1997).
I.2. Fractals for industry: how?
The emergence of techniques such as 3D printers allows for new possibilities that
are not yet used or are even unexplored. Different mathematical models and algorithms
have been developed to generate fractals. We can categorize them into three families,
as follows:
– the first groups algorithms for calculating the attraction basins of a given
function. Julia and Mandelbrot (Peitgen and Richter 1986) or the Mandelbulb (Aron
2009) sets are just a few examples;
– the second is based on the simulation of phenomena such as percolation or
diffusion (Falconer 1990);
– the last corresponds to deterministic or probabilistic algorithms or models
based on the self-similarity property associated with fractals such as the terrain
generator (Zhou et al. 2007), the iterated function system (Barnsley et al. 2008) or
the L-system (Prusinkiewicz and Lindenmayer 1990).
In the latter family of methods, shapes are generated from rewriting rules, making
it possible to control the geometry. Nevertheless, most of these models have been
developed for image synthesis, with no concerns for “manufacturability”, or have been
developed for very specific applications, such as wood modeling (Terraz et al. 2009).
Some studies approach this aspect for applications specific to 3D printers (Soo et al.
2006). In (Barnsley and Vince 2013b), Barnsley defines fractal homeomorphisms of
[0, 1]2 onto the modeling space [0, 1]2 . The same approach is used in 3D to build 3D
fractals. A standard 3D object is integrated into [0, 1]3 and then transformed into a 3D
fractal object. This approach preserves the topology of the original object, which is an
important point for “manufacturability”.
The main difficulty associated with traditional methods for generating fractals lies
in controlling the forms. For example, it is difficult to obtain the desired shape using
the fractal homeomorphism system proposed by Barnsley. Here, we develop a
modeling system of a new type based on the principles of existing CAD software,
while expanding their capabilities and areas of application. This new modeling
system offers designers (engineers in industry) and creators (visual artists, designers,
architects, etc.) new opportunities to quickly design and produce a model, prototype
or unique object. Our approach consists of expanding the possibilities of a standard
CAD system by including fractal shapes, while preserving ease of use for end users.
We propose a formalism based on standard iterated function systems (IFS)

enhanced by the concept of boundary representation (B-rep). This makes it possible
xiv Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms for CAD
to separate the topology of the final forms from the geometric texture, which greatly
simplifies the design process. This approach is powerful, and it generalizes
subdivision curves and standard surfaces (linear, stationary), allowing for additional
control. For example, we have been able to propose a method for connecting a primal
subdivision scheme surface with a dual subdivision scheme surface (Podkorytov
et al. 2014), which is a difficult subject for the standard subdivision approach.
The first chapter recalls the notion of self-similarity, intimately linked to that of
fractality. We present the IFS, formalizing this property of self-similarity. We then
introduce enhancements into this model: controlled iterated function systems (C-IFS)
and boundary controlled iterated function systems (BC-IFS). The second chapter is
devoted to examples. It provides an overview of the possibilities of description and
modeling of BC-IFS, but also allows better understanding the principle of the model
through examples. The third chapter presents the link between BC-IFS, the
NURBS surface model and subdivision surfaces. The results presented in this chapter
are important because they show that these surface models are specific cases of
BC-IFS. This allows them to be manipulated with the same formalism and to make
them interact by building, for example, junctions between two surfaces of any kind.
In the fourth chapter, we outline design tools that facilitate the description process, as
well as examples of the applications, of the design of porous volumes and rough
surfaces.
1
The BC-IFS Model
In this chapter, in section 1.1, we begin by intuitively introducing the notion of

self-similarity. Then, in section 1.1.2, we give its mathematical formulation as
proposed by Hutchinson (Hutchinson 1981) using iterated function systems (IFS).
Next, we present how this mathematical model can be implemented to calculate and
visualize geometric shapes.
In section 1.2, we set out an extension of the IFS, allowing us to move away from
strict self-similarity and generate a larger family of forms. This extension is called a
controlled iterated function system (C-IFS).
Finally, the final step in formalization is to enhance the C-IFS model with the
notion of boundary representation (B-rep). This step is fundamental because it will
make it possible to describe and control the topology of fractal forms.
1.1. Self-similarity and IFS
In this book, when we talk about fractal shapes, fractal objects or simply fractals,
it is in the sense of self-similar objects.
There are different definitions of self-similarity. For example, in the field of

image processing, an image is considered self-similar when certain parts of that
image are identical to (or “look alike”) other parts. This property is exploited, in
particular, by inpainting, a technique that consists of reconstructing part of a
damaged or deliberately subtracted image (for example, to erase a character). The
property of self-similarity is often verified with natural images, which is why
inpainting algorithms are so successful. The principle is to look for an area similar to
the area that needs to be filled in, and copy it over the missing area.
In fractal geometry, it has a different meaning.
Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms for CAD,

First Edition. Christian Gentil, Gilles Gouaty and Dmitry Sokolov.
© ISTE Ltd 2021. Published by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2 Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms for CAD
D EFINITION.– An object is called self-similar if it is composed of copies of itself.
This definition is not rigorous and further clarification has to be provided.

Nonetheless, it contains the main idea. Rather than describing the complex structure
of an object, we describe its parts using a reference to the object itself. It is therefore
a self-referential or recursive definition.
For example, we can describe the structure of a tree as being composed of several
parts: its main branches (see Figure 1.1). Each of its parts can be considered as a
smaller tree.
Figure 1.1. Schematic illustration of self-similarity. The black tree can

be seen as a composition of two trees (in green and red). For a color
version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/gentil/geometric.zip
In this example, we understand how a complex shape, such as that of a tree, can
be simply described. Self-similarity provides information about the structure of the
object with a different approach from that of standard geometric representations. By
referring to the parts of the object, we study the details of the shape, in other words
we perform a change of scale. Each detail is then described according to the object
itself, namely as if the detail “looked like” a reduced version of the object. The tree
is made up of branches. Each branch is defined as a tree. We can then apply thereto
the definition of the tree: it is a composition of branches. This reasoning can then be
indefinitely iterated.
From this definition and this introductory example, a number of questions

immediately arise:
– Is this description relevant?
– Which objects are self-similar?
– What does it mean when a detail “looks like” the object?
The BC-IFS Model 3
– Is the shape of an object completely determined from its self-similarity?

– Knowing the self-similarity property, is it possible to reproduce its shape?
– Can an object possess different self-similarities?
In order to better understand the self-similarity property and provide an early

answer to some of these questions, we are going to consider a second example.
However this time, we start from an object whose shape is not a priori known, but its
self-similarity property is. Assume that this object consists of five main parts, each of
which is an exact copy of the object on a smaller scale.
The left part of Figure 1.2 shows each part, symbolized by an arbitrarily chosen
shape, a square in this case. In this illustration, each part is not identical to the overall
structure. To meet the definition of self-similarity, we need to replace each part with
the overall composite structure of the five forms. We thus obtain the image in the
center of Figure 1.2. However, by adding details to the details, we have also added
details to the overall structure that were not initially present. There is always a
discrepancy between the details of the overall form and the details of each part. By
iterating this construction to reduce this discrepancy, the same effect will then be
observed. Consistency between the object and each of its parts can only be achieved
if the process is applied an infinite number of times to obtain a result like the image
on the right
Figure 1.2. An example of a self-similar object composed of five copies of itself. These
five main parts are symbolized on the left by the five squares. In the center, each square
has been replaced by the overall form composed of the five parts. On the right-hand
side, the same construction process has been applied seven times
From the second example, the following observations can be derived:

– It shows how from the definition of self-similarity alone, a form can be built.
– It brings forward the recursive aspect of the definition.
– To obtain the final form, the construction process must be applied an infinite
number of times. From a mathematical point of view, this is not a problem, but it is
unfeasible from a practical point of view and in particular, in computer science.
– The shape originally chosen to represent each self-similar part (in this example,
the square) is not relevant. Indeed, the details that we add are successively smaller.
After a few iterations (seven or eight), they have little influence on the overall shape.
When the details are smaller in size than the accuracy of the display medium or the
accuracy of the manufacturing device, their initial shape has no influence on the result.
Figure 1.3 shows the same self-similar structure, but is symbolized by the image of
an elephant instead of a square. The replacement or substitution process remains the
same. We can observe that we obtain an identical figure as soon as the details become
very small. The final image is less dense than that obtained with the square, but the
structure is the same.
– The definition of self-similarity that we propose is very inaccurate. What does
“copy of the object” mean? For our example, the copies correspond to the object after
applying geometric transformations: change of scale (<1), translation and rotation.
These transformations are essential because they are the ones that tell us, with each
iteration, how to replace each part with its details.
Figure 1.3. The self-similarity property, as shown in Figure 1.2, is

symbolized by means of a pink elephant instead of a square. For a
color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/gentil/geometric.zip
C OMMENTS ON F IGURE 1.3.– The same construction process is used. In the

right-hand side of the image, we observe that after seven iterations the resulting form
is composed of very fine details: a set of very small elephants that we cannot discern.
The overall shape, however, is identical to that shown in Figure 1.2.
1.1.1. Mathematical definitions and reminders
The concept of self-similarity was formalized by Hutchinson, based on iterated

function systems (IFS) (Hutchinson 1981). Subsequently, it was developed and
popularized by Barnsley (1988). Because the construction of fractal objects is based
The BC-IFS Model 5
on an iterative process, it is then appropriate to choose workspaces with “good

properties” that ensure the convergence of these constructions. In this section, we
give the definitions of the spaces from which a very general notion of objects is
defined and which iterated systems of functions will be able to operate with.
We also recall the concept of contracting transformations and fixed-points. These

two concepts justify the representation (or coding) of self-similar fractals by iterated
function systems. They make it possible to show the existence and unicity of a fractal
associated with an iterated system of functions.
This section is not essential in understanding the rest of this book. An intuitive
understanding of the concept of contractive function and of the principle of the fixed-
point theorem should be enough.
1.1.1.1. Working space

As a work environment, we choose a complete metric space, denoted by (X, d).
The topology associated with the X space is simply that induced by the metric d.
In practice, this space corresponds to the set in which fractal objects are designed.
Generally, X = R2 , R3 and d correspond to the Euclidian distance, hereafter denoted
by dE . Subsequently, we shall see that X can designate a barycentric space. The latter
are best suited to represent shapes according to control points.
A complete space is a space in which any Cauchy sequence converges. Intuitively,

if the distance between the terms of a sequence can be as small as we wish, provided
that the terms are chosen with sufficiently high indices, then we are guaranteed that
this sequence possesses a limit in that same space.
In our space (X, d), an “object” is defined as a non-empty compact subset. The
set of the objects is denoted by H(X). If space X is a finite-dimensional metric Space
(which will be the case in our context), then a compact set is a closed and bounded
set. A closed set is a set that contains its boundary. The fact that it is bounded means
that it can be included inside a ball of radius r < ∞.
The definition that we give an object is very general and does not ensure that the
object can be materialized or manufactured. It can have an empty interior and it can
be composed of unconnected parts, or both. For example:
– if (X, d) = (R2 , dE ), the set reduced to a point {(1, 2)} is an object with an
empty interior;
1
– if (X, d) = (R, dE ), {xn = n, n ∈ N} ∪ {0} is an non-connected object with
an empty interior.
It is helpful to associate a distance with the spaces that we work in. This allows
us to make use of the topology induced by this distance and to simply manipulate
the notion of neighborhood. We equip the set of objects with the Hausdorff distance,
induced by that of the working space (X, d). This distance is defined as follows.
D EFINITION.– Let (X, d) be a metric space, the Hausdorff distance between two
elements A and B of H(X) is defined by:
dX (A, B) = max{sup inf d(a, b), sup inf d(a, b)}
a∈A b∈B b∈B a∈A
The Hausdorff distance is a distance between sets. To intuitively understand this

distance, consider two sets A and B. If the Hausdorff distance between these two sets
is equal to , it means that for any point of A, a point B can be found at a distance
less than or equal to . However, for any point of B, a point of A can also be found at
a distance less than or equal to . In other words, if we take a ball of radius and we
walk the center of that ball over all the points of A, the space covered by this ball will
cover the set B. The same property must be verified when inverting the role of A and
B (see Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.4. Hausdorff distance. For a color version of

this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/gentil/geometric.zip
C OMMENTS ON F IGURE 1.4.– On the left, the Hausdorff distance between the two
purple and green sets is less than or equal to . If the center of a disc of radius
travels through all the points of the purple set, the set of discs will cover the green
set. Conversely, if the center of a disc of radius travels through all the points of the
green set, the set of discs will cover the purple set. On the right, the pink set is at a
Hausdorff distance smaller than from the set consisting of blue dots. Indeed, each
blue dot belongs to the pink set and the set of discs of radius centered at the blue
dots covers the pink set. We observe that these last two sets do not share the same
topological nature.
We then define the set of objects in which we shall build our fractal objects using
iterative processes.
D EFINITION.– The space of the objects of (X, d), denoted H(X), is the set of the
non-empty compact subsets of X endowed with the Hausdorff distance dX , associated
with d.
The BC-IFS Model 7
The following property is fundamental, it makes it possible to show that the mere
knowledge of the self-similar property alone is sufficient to determine an object in a
unique way.
P ROPERTY.– If (X, d) is a complete metric space, then (H(X), dX ) is a complete

metric space.
This property also ensures the convergence of the iterative construction process of
fractal objects (see section 1.1.4).
1.1.1.2. Geometric transformations

Geometric transformations play a major role in the formalization of the
self-similarity property. As we have been able to understand through the introductory
example (see Figure 1.2), they completely determine the geometry of the forms.
Here, we recall some definitions and properties of transformations.
D EFINITION.– A transformation is a function whose definition domain is equal to the

starting space.
D EFINITION.– A transformation T : X → X, with (X, d) as a metric space, is

contractive if there is a real number s, 0 s < 1, such that
d(T (x), T (y)) < s · d(x, y) ∀x, y ∈ X.
The concept of contractive transformation appears implicitly in the self-similarity

property when we wish to transform an object into one of its parts, which is necessarily
smaller than the object itself. We shall see later that this condition is convenient but
not necessary.
E XAMPLE.– Contractive transformations:

– f : R → R such that f (x) = 12 x + 12 , (s = 21 ) ;
– f : R2 → R2 such that f (x, y) = ( 13 x, 13 y) , (s = 13 ).
Here, we introduce a fundamental theorem on contractive transformations: the

Banach fixed-point theorem. In our context, as we shall see hereafter, this theorem
justifies the relevance of the definition of self-similarity by proving the existence and
unicity of the object associated with a given self-similarity.
T HEOREM.– Let (X, d) be a complete metric space and T a contractive transformation

on (X, d). There then exists a single point x ∈ X called a fixed-point of T , verifying
T (x) = x.
E XAMPLE.–
1 1
– The function f (x) = 2x + 2 (x ∈ R) has as unique fixed point xF = 1 :
f (1) = 1.
– The function f (x, y) = ( 13 x, 13 y) ((x, y) ∈ R2 ) has as unique fixed point
x = (0, 0) : f (0, 0) = (0, 0).
F
If a function is not contractive, it may have several fixed points, or none.

– The function f (x) = x2 (x ∈ R) has two fixed points xF
0 = 0 and x1 = 1
F
(f (0) = 0 and f (1) = 1).

– The identity function possesses an infinite number of fixed points.
– The function f (x) = x + 1 (x ∈ R) has no fixed point.
1.1.2. Self-similarity
D EFINITION.– Let (X, d) be a complete metric space and (H(X), dX ) the space of
objects associated with it. K ∈ H(X) is self-similar if there exists a finite number N
of contractive transformations on X, Ti , i = 0 · · · , N − 1, such that:
−1
N
K= Ti (K)
i=0
We will then say that the object K possesses the self-similarity property relating to
the transformation set {Ti , i = 0 · · · , N − 1}. It is useful to identify transformations
using indices to differentiate them and to then explain formulations and algorithms.
The order, however, is arbitrary and has no impact on the geometry of objects. We
denote by Σ = {0, · · · , N − 1}, the set of these indices.
The previous definition specifies the intuitive idea introduced in section 1.1. The
objects that we are looking at are compacts subsets of a metric space, that is, closed
and bounded sets. The nature of the transformations describing self-similarity
expresses what we mean by “composed of copies of itself”. These transformations
are supposed to be contractive, which seems natural because part of the object must
be smaller than the object itself. This condition of contraction is sufficient but not
necessary. A part is necessarily included in the object, but locally it could be
stretched over certain areas, or in a given direction, and contracted in another
direction (see Figure 1.5).
The BC-IFS Model 9
Figure 1.5. Example of self-similarity involving non-contractive

transformations, K = T0 (K) ∪ T1 (K). For a color version of
this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/gentil/geometric.zip
C OMMENTS ON F IGURE 1.5.– The transformation T0 transforms the overall

rectangle K (whose edge is a thick black line) over the blue rectangle by rotating and
contracting in one direction and dilating in the other: the edge referred to by the
horizontal arrow is transformed into the edge referred to by the vertical edge. The
transformation T1 operates analogously for the pink rectangle.
1.1.3. Examples
1.1.3.1. The Cantor set

One of the simplest examples is that of the Cantor set. It is iteratively defined from
the [0, 1] segment. This segment is divided into three segments of equal length and
the middle segment is removed. The same process is applied to each of the remaining
segments (see Figure 1.6). The operation is repeated endlessly. The transformations of
R describing this self-similarity are: T0 (x) = x3 and T1 (x) = x3 + 23 .
Figure 1.6. The Cantor set successively represented at the iteration

levels from 1 to 5. For a color version of this figure, see
www.iste.co.uk/gentil/geometric.zip
1.1.3.2. The Cartesian product of two Cantor sets

The Cartesian product of two Cantor sets can be directly obtained from the
definition of the Cartesian product, or by simply defining self-similarity, as presented
by Figure 1.7. This self-similarity can be described by a set of four transformations
of R2 :
1 1 2
x 0 x x 0 x
T0 = 3 1 , T1 = 3 1 + 3
y 0 3 y y 0 3 y 0
1 2 1
x 0 x x 0 x 0
T2 = 3 1 + 32 , T3 = 3 1 + 2
y 0 3 y 3 y 0 3 y 3
Figure 1.7. Cartesian product of two Cantor sets successively

represented at iteration levels from 1 to 4. For a color version
of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/gentil/geometric.zip
1.1.3.3. The Sierpinski triangle

The Sierpinski triangle is also a classic example. It is built from a solid triangle,
subdivided, and four triangles, from which the central triangle is removed. The
operation is iterated for each of the resulting triangles (see Figure 1.8). The three
transformations of R2 for this Sierpinski triangle are homotheties of ratio 12 centered
at a vertex of the triangle:
1 1
x 0 x
T0 = 2 1 − 2
y 0 2 y 0
1 1
x 0 x
T1 = 2 1 + 2
y 0 2 y 0
1
x 0 x 0
T2 = 2 1 + 1
y 0 2 y 2
1.1.3.4. The Menger sponge

The Menger sponge is built from a square decomposed into nine squares of the
same size, removing the central square. Figure 1.9 illustrates the recursive
construction. Self-similarity is described by eight homotheties of ratio 13 , with the
respective centers of the four vertices of the square and the four middles of the sides
square.
The BC-IFS Model 11
Figure 1.8. The Sierpinski triangle successively represented at iteration

Figure 1.9. The Menger sponge successively represented at iteration

1.1.3.5. The Romanesco broccoli

The Romanesco broccoli is a very nice illustration of a self-similar structure
produced by nature. It is composed of a multitude of growths, each resembling a
miniature copy of the whole broccoli. By using this self-similar property, it is
possible to simply generate its geometric structure using seven transformations of R3
(see Figure 1.10). The transformations describing the self-similarity of the figure are
given as an appendix in section A.1.1.
1.1.3.6. Non-fractal self-similar object

In previous examples, we very clearly perceive the fractal aspect of structures,
which is reflected in increasing numbers of ramifications, or details that are always
structured in the same way. However, not every self-similar object is a fractal. A very
simple example is the segment that can be decomposed into two smaller segments
(see Figure 1.11). There are infinite possibilities to describe this self-similarity using
two transformations of R: T0α (x) = αx, T1α (x) = (1 − α)x + α with α ∈]0, 1[. In
fact, regardless of the value of α ∈]0, 1[, T0α ([0, 1]) ∪ T1α ([0, 1]) = [0, 1]. An arbitrary
number of transformations can also be used. Similarly, the square can be broken down
into smaller squares. As with the segment, this decomposition is not unique.
1.1.3.7. L-shape
Other less obvious forms have properties of self-similarity as an L-shape (see
Figure 1.12).
Figure 1.10. Example of Romanesco broccoli consisting of seven

self-similar elements. For a color version of this figure, see
0 1
0 1
1
2
0 1
0 1
1
6
Figure 1.11. On the left-hand side, we provide a few examples of self-similarity

describing the segment. At the top, the segment is composed of two segments of equal
length α = 12 . At the bottom, it is cut into two segments, the first of length 16 and the
second of length 56 (α = 16 ). On the right side, we provide an example of self-similarity
for a square. For a color version of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/gentil/geometric.zip
R EMARK.– There is no unicity in the description of the self-similarity property. If we

have:

K= Ti (K)
i∈Σ
by replacing K in the second member of the equality with its self-similar

decomposition, we get:

K= Ti ◦ Tj (K)
i,j∈Σ
The set of transformations defined by the compositions of all the pairs of initial
transformations, namely {Ti ◦ Tj }i,j∈Σ , is another way of seeing or expressing this
The BC-IFS Model 13
same self-similarity. Another example is the description of the self-similarity of the

segment [0, 1] presented above.
Figure 1.12. Example of a decomposition of an L-shape into several

similar elements. For a color version of this figure, see
The question here is whether this self-similarity property is relevant to be used as

a model of geometric representation. In other words, can the mere knowledge of this
property be sufficient in defining, describing and manipulating an object? In
geometric modeling, it is useful that a representation verifies a number of properties
such as validity, non-ambiguity, unicity, brevity, ease of construction and adequacy of
applications (see (Requicha 1996)). Without these properties, this representation will
be more complex to use. For example, if the representation can lead to non-valid
descriptions (that is, not representing a coherent object), it will be necessary to
develop devices to verify the validity of a given representation. In addition, certain
automatic operations or processes applied to valid representations may produce
non-valid, non-manufacturable and unusable representations. We know that for a
given self-similar object, there is no unicity in the representation by a set of
contractive transformations. This is not without a number of problems, for example
in searching for identical objects in a database. This is nonetheless the case for most
existing representations: meshes, CSG model, B-rep, etc.
From this point of view, the following property is fundamental because alone, it
justifies the relevance of self-similarity and its use as a system of representation.
P ROPERTY.– Let {Ti }i∈Σ be a set of N transformations on X, then there exists a

unique element K ∈ H(X), possessing the self-similarity property relating to the
contractive transformations Ti , i = 0 · · · , N − 1, that is, verifying:

K= Ti (K)
i∈Σ
The proof is given by Hutchinson (1981). It is based on the contractive property of

an operator called the Hutchinson operator.
D EFINITION.– In the early 80s, Hutchinson (1981) used the Banach fixed point
theorem to deduce the existence and the uniqueness of an attractor for a hyperbolic
IFS, i.e. the fixed point of the associated contractive map. Let {Ti }i∈Σ be a set of N
contractive transformation on X, and we call the Hutchinson operator associated
with {Ti }i∈Σ , the operator T : H(X) → H(X) defined by:

∀K ∈: H(X), T(K) = Ti (K)
i∈Σ
P ROPERTY.– Let {Ti }i∈Σ be a set of N contractive transformations on X, then the

associated Hutchinson operator T is contractive in (H(X), dX ).
P ROOF.– See Barnsley (1988).
The proof of the existence and unicity of an object, verifying the self-similarity
property described by a set of contractions, is then simple.
P ROOF.– The Hutchinson operator T is contractive in the complete metric space

(H(X), dX ). According to the Banach fixed-point theorem, there exists a unique
element K ∈ H(X) verifying:
T(K) = K
By definition of T, K has the self-similarity property relatively to {Ti }i∈Σ :

K= Ti (K)
i∈Σ
Therefore, a set of contractive transformations defines a unique object. This

object has the self-similarity property described by this set of transformations. From
a geometric modeling point of view, this result has an important consequence. For an
object K ∈ H(X), if we can exhibit a set of contractive transformations {Ti }i∈Σ
N−1
such that K = Ti (K), by unicity of the fixed point, the set K is determined
i=0
without ambiguity by this set of transformations {Ti }i∈Σ .
Thereby, the object in Figure 1.13 presents an object of “complex” structure,

whose description by means of a standard model would be difficult, if not impossible.
Using the self-similarity property, this object is completely determined by two affine
transformations T0 and T1 .
Another issue is to determine whether an object is self-similar, and to find the

set of transformations corresponding to this self-similarity. In this book, we will not
directly address this issue, which is known as the inverse problem. Our goal is to
provide tools to design and manipulate self-similar objects. The inverse problem is a
difficult problem and is only partially solved. Solutions have been proposed for a few
specific cases (Barnsley et al. 1986; Collet et al. 2000; Guérin and Tosan 2005).
The BC-IFS Model 15
Figure 1.13. Example of self-similarity. The object on the left-hand side has a
self-similarity highlighted by the right-hand side illustration. The blue portion is a copy
using a homothety while the pink portion is obtained by applying the composition of a
homothety with a symmetry, inverting the figure following an axis. For a color version
of this figure, see www.iste.co.uk/gentil/geometric.zip
1.1.4. Iterated function systems
In this section, we give the basic definitions and properties of iterated function
systems, which will be subsequently useful.
A large amount of research focuses on the properties of iterated function systems

and their attractors. The purpose of this book is not to survey them. We emphasize a
few properties that we believe are essential for the construction of the BC-IFS model
that we shall introduce later in this section.
D EFINITION.– Let (X, d) be a metric space, an iterated function system (denoted

−1
IFS) is a finite set of contractive transformations T = {Ti }N i=0 on X. We denote by
Σ = {0, . . . , N − 1} the finite set of the transformation indices |Σ| = N . The IFS is
denoted by {X; Ti | i ∈ Σ} or {Ti | i ∈ Σ} if there is no ambiguity about the space
X.
R EMARK.– In order to simplify the notation, the IFS is denoted in the same way as
the associated Hutchinson operator. These are nonetheless two different mathematical
entities. However, there can be no ambiguity within the context.
D EFINITION.– Let {Ti }i∈Σ be an IFS and T the associated Hutchinson operator. The
only fixed point of T is called an attractor and is denoted A(T), or simply A if there
is no ambiguity.
R EMARK.– If T = {T } is reduced to a transformation, then A(T) = {xF } where

xF ∈ X refers to the fixed point of the transformation T .
P ROPERTY.– Let T0 and T1 denote two IFS on X such that T0 ⊂ T1 , then:
A(T0 ) ⊂ A(T1 )
The lattice structure of the sets is transported to that of the attractors by the function
A, which associates its attractor with an IFS. An example of this lattice structure in
attractors is given in Figure 1.14. This property is essential: it induces a B-rep structure
on the attractors and we shall make use of it to control the topological structure of
fractal objects. Figure 1.15 shows how this property can be utilized to connect two
attractors with a common “sub-attractor”.
{T0 , T1 , T2 }
{T0 , T1 } {T0 , T2 } {T1 , T2 } A
{T0 } {T1 } {T2 }
Figure 1.14. Lattice structure of the attractors. On the left, the lattice structure
on the set of the parts of an IFS is transported by A over the set of the
associated attractors (right-hand side). For a color version of this figure, see
C OMMENTS ON F IGURE 1.14.– The fixed points of each transformation T0 , T1 and

T2 represented by black dots are included in the attractors A({Ti , Tj }), i = j, which
are themselves included in A({T0 , T1 , T2 }). For example, the attractor of the sub-IFS
{T1 , T2 }, represented in blue, is a subset of the global attractor.
P ROPERTY.– Let T = {Ti }i∈Σ be an IFS, A(T) ⊇ {xF

i }i∈Σ , where xi refers to the
F
fixed point of the transformation Ti .
P ROOF.– This property is a consequence of the previous property. ∀i ∈ Σ, {Ti } ⊂ T,

then A({Ti }) = {xF
i } ⊂ A(T).
P ROPERTY.– Let T = {Ti }i∈Σ be an IFS; if x ∈ A(T), then ∀i ∈ Σ, Ti (x) ∈ A(T).

P ROOF.– A(T) = T(A(T)) = i∈Σ Ti (A(T)).
Determining the shape of an attractor from the knowledge of an IFS is a difficult

exercise, even in the case of simple affine transformations of the Euclidian plane.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
common to various butterflies in Java, and calls it "phaeism"; and Bates
states that in the Amazon valley numerous species of butterflies vary in
a similar manner, as regards colour, in a locality. This phenomenon is
now called "homoeochromatism," and is supposed to be due to the
effect of local conditions on a susceptible organisation, though there is
no experimental evidence of this.
Mimicry.—There are many cases in Lepidoptera of species that depart

more or less strongly in appearance from those forms to which they are
considered to be allied, and at the same time resemble more or less
closely species to which they are less allied. This phenomenon is called
mimicry.[204] Usually the resembling forms are actually associated
during life. Bates, who observed this phenomenon in the Amazon
valley, thought that it might be accounted for by the advantage resulting
to the exceptionally coloured forms from the resemblance;[205] it being
assumed that these were unprotected, while the forms they resembled
were believed to be specially protected by nauseous odours or taste. It
was, in fact, thought that the destroying enemies were deceived by the
resemblance into supposing that the forms that were in reality edible
were inedible. This subject has been greatly discussed, and in the
course of the discussion numerous cases that could not be accounted
for by Bates's hypothesis have been revealed. One of these is the fact
that resemblances of the kind alluded to very frequently occur amongst
inedible forms. This also has been thought to be accounted for by a
supposed advantage to the Insects; it being argued that a certain
number of "protected" forms are destroyed by enemies the instincts of
which are faulty, and which therefore always require to learn by
individual experience that a certain sort of colour is associated with a
nasty taste. The next step of the argument is that it will be an
advantage to a protected butterfly to form part of a large association of
forms having one coloration, because the ignorant enemies will more
easily learn the association of a certain form of coloration with
nastiness; moreover such destruction as does occur will be distributed
over a larger number of species, so that each species of a large,
similarly coloured, inedible association will have a less number of its
individuals destroyed. It is scarcely a matter for surprise that many
naturalists are very sceptical as to these explanations; especially as the
phenomena are supposed to have occurred in the past, so that they
cannot be directly verified or disproved. It has not, however, been
found, as a matter of fact, that even unprotected butterflies are much
destroyed in the perfect state by birds. Moreover, in endeavouring to
realise the steps of the process of development of the resemblance, we
meet with the difficulty that the amount of resemblance to the model
that is assumed to be efficient at one step of the development, and to
bring safety, is at the next step supposed to be inefficient and to involve
destruction. In other words, while analysis of the explanation shows that
it postulates a peculiar and well-directed discriminative power, and a
persistent selection on the part of the birds, observation leads to the
belief that birds have been but little concerned in the matter. If we add
to this that there is no sufficient evidence that the species now similar
were ever dissimilar (as it is supposed they were by the advocates of
the hypothesis), we think it is clear that the explanation from our point
of view is of but little importance.[206] The comparatively simple,
hypothetical explanation, originally promulgated by Bates, is sometimes
called Batesian mimicry; while the "inedible association" hypothesis is
termed Müllerian mimicry.
There is one branch of the subject of mimicry that we think of great

interest. This is the resemblance between Insects of different Orders; or
between Insects of the same Order, but belonging to groups that are
essentially different in form and appearance. It is not infrequent for
beetles to resemble Hymenoptera, and it is still more frequent for
Lepidoptera to resemble Hymenoptera, and that not only in colour and
form, but also in movements and attitude. Druce says: "Many of the
species of Zygaenidae are the most wonderful of all the moths; in some
cases they so closely resemble Hymenoptera that at first sight it is
almost impossible to determine to which Order they belong."[207] W.
Müller says: "The little Lepidoptera of the family Glaucopides, that are
so like certain wasps as to completely deceive us, have when alive
exactly the same manner of holding their wings, the same restless
movements, the same irregular flight as a wasp."[208] Seitz and others
record a case in which a Brazilian Macroglossa exactly resembles a
humming-bird, in company with which it flies; and the same naturalist
also tells us[209] of a Skipper butterfly that greatly resembles a
grasshopper of the genus Tettix, and that moreover makes movements
like the jumping of grasshoppers. In most of these cases the
probabilities of either original similarity, arrested evolution, or the action
of similar conditions are excluded: and the hypothesis of the influence,
by some means or other, of one organism on another is strongly
suggested.
The classification of Lepidoptera was said by Latreille a century ago to

be a reproach to entomologists. Since that time an enormous number
of new species and genera have been described, but only recently has
much advance been made in the way of improvement of classification.
The progress made has been limited to a better comprehension and
definition of the families. The nervuration of the wings is the character
most in vogue for this purpose. As regards the larger groups, and
Phylogeny, there is a general opinion prevalent to the effect that
Micropterygidae, Eriocephalidae and Hepialidae are in a comparatively
primitive condition, but as to the relations of these families one with the
other, or with other Lepidoptera, there is a wide difference of opinion.
Fig. 176—Clubs of butterflies' antennae. Terminal portions of antenna of,

1, Pieris brassicae; 2, Styx infernalis; 3, Hestia idea (sub-family
Danaides); 4, Eudamus proteus, and 5, Limochores taumas
(Hesperiidae). (After Schatz and Scudder.)
The primary divisions of the family most often met with in literature are:
—either Rhopalocera (= butterflies) and Heterocera (= moths); or
Macrolepidoptera and Microlepidoptera; the Macrolepidoptera including
the butterflies and large moths, the Microlepidoptera being limited to the
families Tineidae (now itself in process of division into numerous
families) and Tortricidae; some entomologists including also Pyralidae,
Pterophoridae and Orneodidae in Microlepidoptera. The division of all
Lepidoptera into two series is merely a temporary device necessitated
by imperfect acquaintance with morphology. The division into Macro-
and Micro- lepidoptera is entirely unscientific.
Series 1. Rhopalocera or Butterflies.—Antennae knobbed at the tip
or thickened a little before the tip, without pectinations, projecting
processes, or conspicuous arrangements of cilia. Hind wings
without a frenulum, but with the costal nervure strongly curved at
the base (Fig. 161, II, B).
Series II. Heterocera or Moths.—Antennae various in form, only

rarely knobbed at the tip, and in such cases a frenulum present. In
the large majority a frenulum is present, and the costal nervure of
the hind-wing is either but little arched at the base (as in Fig. 161, I,
B) or it has a large area between it and the front margin; but in
certain families the hind wing is formed much as in Rhopalocera.
It may be inferred from these definitions that the distinction between the
two sub-Orders is neither sharply defined nor of great importance. The
club of the antenna of the Rhopalocera exhibits considerable variety in
form (Fig. 176).[210] Butterflies are as a rule diurnal in their activity and
moths nocturnal; but in the tropics there are numerous Heterocera that
are diurnal, and many of these resemble butterflies not only in colour
but even in the shapes of their wings.
Series I. Rhopalocera. Butterflies.
Classification and Families of Butterflies. Although considerable

unanimity exists as to the natural groups of butterflies, there is much
diversity of opinion as to what divisions are of equivalent value—some
treating as sub-families groups that others call families—and as to the
way the families should be combined. There is, however, a general
agreement that the Hesperiidae are the most distinct of the families,
and E. Reuter considers them a distinct sub-Order with the name
Grypocera.[211]
Four categories may be readily distinguished, as follows, viz:—
1. The majority of butterflies; having the first pair of legs more or less strikingly
different from the other pairs; frequently very much smaller and not used as
legs; when not very small, then differing according to sex of the same
species, being smaller in the male than in the female; the part most
peculiar is the tarsus, which is modified in various manners, but in the
males of this great series is always destitute of its natural form of a
succession of simple joints five in number. There is no pad on the front
tibia.
Fam. Nymphalidae, Erycinidae, Lycaenidae.
[The distinctions between these three families are found in the amount and
kind of the abortion of the front legs; for definition refer to the heading of
each of the families.]
2. The front legs are in general form like the other pairs; their tibiae have no
pads; the claws of all the feet are bifid, and there is an empodium in
connection with them.
Fam. Pieridae.
3. The front legs are like the other pairs; their tibiae however possess pads; the
claws are large, not bifid, and there is no empodium; the metanotum is
completely exposed at the base of the abdomen.
Fam. Papilionidae.
4. The front legs are like the other pairs; their tibiae however possess pads; the
claws are small, toothed at the base, and there is an empodium; the
metanotum is concealed by the prolonged and overhanging mesonotum.
Fam. Hesperiidae.
The relations between the families Erycinidae, Lycaenidae, and

Nymphalidae are very intimate. All these have the front legs more or
less modified, and the distinctions between the families depend almost
entirely on generalisations as to these modifications. These facts have
led Scudder to associate the Lycaenidae and Erycinidae in one group,
which he terms "Rurales." It is however difficult to go so far and no
farther; for the relations between both divisions of Rurales and the
Nymphalidae are considerable. We shall subsequently find that the
genus Libythea is by many retained as a separate family, chiefly
because it is difficult to decide whether it should be placed in Erycinidae
or in Nymphalidae. Hence it is difficult to see in this enormous complex
of seven or eight thousand species more than a single great Nymphalo-
Lycaenid alliance. The forms really cognate in the three families are
however so few, and the number of species in the whole is so very
large, that it is a matter of great convenience in practice to keep the
three families apart. It is sufficient for larger purposes to bear in mind
their intimate connexions.
The Papilionidae and Pieridae are treated by many as two sub-divisions

of one group. But we have not been able to find any justification for this
in the existence of forms with connecting characters. Indeed it would,
from this point of view, appear that the Pieridae are more closely
connected with the Lycaenidae and Erycinidae than they are with
Papilionidae; in one important character, the absence of the pad of the
front tibia, the Nymphalo-Lycaenids and the Pierids agree. It has also
been frequently suggested that the Papilionidae (in the larger sense
just mentioned) might be associated with the Hesperiidae. But no
satisfactory links have been brought to light; and if one of the more
lowly Hesperiids, such as Thanaos, be compared with one of the lower
Papilionidae, such as Parnassius, very little approximation can be
perceived.
It appears, therefore, at present that Hesperiidae, Papilionidae,

Pieridae, and the Nymphalo-Lycaenid complex are naturally distinct.
But in the following review of the families and sub-families of butterflies,
we shall, in accordance with the views of the majority of Lepidopterists,
treat the Lycaenidae and Erycinidae as families distinct from both
Nymphalidae and Pieridae.[212]
The number of described species of butterflies is probably about

13,000; but the list is at present far from complete; forms of the largest
size and most striking appearance being still occasionally discovered.
Forty years ago the number known was not more than one-third or one-
fourth of what it is at present, and a crowd of novelties of the less
conspicuous kinds is brought to light every year. Hence it is not too
much to anticipate that 30,000, or even 40,000 forms may be acquired
if entomologists continue to seek them with the enthusiasm and
industry that have been manifested of late. On the other hand, the
species of Rhopalocera seem to be peculiarly liable to dimorphic, to
seasonal and to local variation; so that it is possible that ultimately the
number of true species—that is, forms that do not breed together
actually or by means of intermediates, morphological or chronological—
may have to be considerably reduced.
In Britain we have a list of only sixty-eight native butterflies, and some

even of these are things of the past, while others are only too certainly
disappearing. New Zealand is still poorer, possessing only eighteen;
and this number will probably be but little increased by future
discoveries. South America is the richest part of the world, and Wallace
informs us that 600 species of butterflies could, forty years ago, be
found in the environs of the city of Pará.
Fam. 1. Nymphalidae.—The front pair of legs much reduced in size in

each sex, their tarsi in the male with but one joint, though in the female
there are usually five but without any claws. Pupa suspended by the tail
so as to hang down freely. We include in this family several sub-families
treated by some taxonomists as families; in this respect we follow
Bates, whose arrangement[213] still remains the basis of butterfly
classification. With this extension the Nymphalidae is the most
important of the families of butterflies, and includes upwards of 250
genera, and between 4000 and 5000 species. There are eight sub-
families.
It is in Nymphalidae that the act of pupation reaches its acme of

complication and perfection; the pupae hang suspended by the tail, and
the cremaster, that is the process at the end of the body, bears highly-
developed hooks (Fig. 177, C, D). The variety in form of the chrysalids
is extraordinary; humps or processes often project from the body,
making the Insect a fantastic object; the strange appearance is
frequently increased by patches like gold or silver, placed on various
parts of the body. It is believed that the term chrysalid was first
suggested by these golden pupæ. The Purple Emperor, Apatura iris,
differs strikingly in the pupa as well as in the larva-stage from all our
other Nymphalids; it is of green colour, very broad along the sides, but
narrow on the dorsal and ventral aspects (Fig. 177). The skin of this
pupa is less hard than usual, and the pupa seems to be of a very
delicate constitution. The Purple Emperor, like some of the Satyrides as
well as some of its more immediate congeners, hibernates in our
climate as a partially grown larva and passes consequently only a very
brief period of its existence in the form of a pupa.
Fig. 177.—Pupa of the Purple Emperor butterfly, Apatura iris. New Forest.
A, Lateral, B, dorsal aspect; C, enlarged view of cremaster with the
suspensory hook; D, one hook still more enlarged.
Sub-Fam. 1. Danaides.—Front wing with inner-margin (submedian)

nervure, with a short fork at the base. Cell of hind wing closed. Front
foot of the female ending in a corrugate knob. Caterpillars smooth,
provided with a few long fleshy processes. The claws are in a variable
state, being sometimes simple, as in Papilionidae, sometimes with an
empodium, apparently of an imperfect kind. The Danaides are usually
large Insects with an imperfect style of ornament and colour; they have
a great deal of black or very dark scaling, and in some Euploea this is
agreeably relieved by a violet or purple suffusion, and these are really
fine Insects. Usually there are large pale spaces, of some neutral
indefinite tint, on which black blotches are distributed in a striking but
inartistic manner. In many of the species the markings are almost spot
for spot the same on the upper and under sides. About seven genera
and 250 species are recognised. Danaides occur in all the warmer
parts of the world, but are most numerous in the Eastern tropics. In
Europe the family is represented only by an Asiatic and African species,
Limnas chrysippus, that has extended its range to Greece. Besides this
another species, Anosia erippus, Cr. (unfortunately also called Anosia
menippe, Hb., and Danais archippus or even D. plexippus) has in the
last two or three decades extended its range to various islands and
distant localities, concomitantly, it is believed, with an extension of the
distribution of its food-plant, Asclepias. This Insect has several times
been taken in this country, and may probably be a natural immigrant. It
is a common butterfly in North America, where it is called the Monarch.
[214]
Some, at least, of the Danaides are unpleasant to birds in odour or in
taste, or both. Among them there occur, according to Moore[215] and
others, numerous cases of resemblance between forms that are thus
protected. It is possible that the odour and taste are of some value to
the Insects;[216] as, however, butterflies of any kind appear to be but
rarely attacked in the imago-state by birds, and as their chief enemies
are parasitic Insects that attack the larval instar, it is impossible to
consider this protection of such prime importance to the species as
many theorists assume it to be.
Fig. 178—Ithomia pusio. Brazil.
Sub-Fam. 2. Ithomiides.—Differs from Danaides by the female front

foot having a true, though somewhat abbreviate tarsus. The caterpillers
have no long processes. There has been considerable difference of
opinion as to this division of butterflies. It is the family Neotropidae of
Schatz, the Mechanitidae of Berg; also the "Danaioid Heliconiidae" of
several previous writers, except that Ituna and Lycorea do not belong
here but to Danaides. Godman and Salvin treat it as a group of the
Danaid sub-family. The Ithomiides are peculiar to tropical America,
where some 20 or 30 genera and about 500 species have been
discovered. There is considerable variety amongst them. Ithomia and
Hymenitis are remarkable for the small area of their wings, which bear
remarkably few scales, these ornaments being in many cases limited to
narrow bands along the margins of the wings, and a mark extending
along the discocellular nervule. Wallace says they prefer the shades of
the forest and flit, almost invisible, among the dark foliage. Many of
these species have the hind-wings differently veined in the two sexes
on the anterior part, in connection with the existence in the male of
peculiar fine hairs, placed near the costal and subcostal veins. Tithorea
and other forms are, however, heavily scaled insects of stronger build,
their colours usually being black, tawny-red or brown, yellow, and white.
In the sub-fam. Danaides, according to Fritz Müller, the male has scent-
tufts at the extremity of the abdomen, whereas in Ithomiides analogous
structures exist on the upper side of the hind-wing. Ithomiides have
various colour-resemblances with members of the Heliconiides and
Pieridae; Tithorea has colour analogues in Heliconius, and Ithomia in
Dismorphia (formerly called Leptalis). Crowds of individuals of certain
species of Ithomia are occasionally met with, and mixed with them
there are found a small number of examples of Dismorphia coloured
like themselves. They are placed by Haase in his category of
secondary models. Belt states that some Ithomiides are distasteful to
monkeys and spiders, but are destroyed by Fossorial Hymenoptera,
which use the butterflies as food for their young; and he also says that
they are very wary when the wasp is near, and rise off their perches into
the air, as if aware that the wasp will not then endeavour to seize them.
Much information is given about the habits by Bates in the paper in
which he first propounded the "theory of mimicry."[217] The larvae are
said to live on Solanaceae.
The genus Hamadryas is placed by some writers in Danaides, by

others in Ithomiides; and Haase has proposed to make it the group
"Palaeotropinae." The species are small, black and white Insects,
somewhat like Pierids. They are apparently hardy Insects, and are
abundant in certain parts of the Austro-Malay region.
Sub-Fam. 3. Satyrides.—Palpi strongly pressed together, set in front

with long, stiff hairs. Front wings frequently with one or more of the
nervures swollen or bladder-like at the base of the wing. Cells of both
wings closed. Caterpillar thickest at the middle, the hind end of the
body bifid. Pupa generally suspended by the cremaster, without girth:
but sometimes terrestrial. This is a very extensive group, consisting of
upwards of 1000 species. The Insects are usually of small size, of
various shades of brown or greyish colours, with circular or ringed
marks on the under sides of the wings. It is found all over the world,
and is well represented in Europe; our Meadow-browns, Heaths, and
Marbled-whites, as well as the great genus Erebia of the highlands and
mountains belonging to it. Most of these Insects have but feeble powers
of flight, and rise but little from the surface of the ground. The
caterpillars live on various grasses. They are usually green or brown,
destitute of armature, and a good deal like the caterpillars of Noctuid
moths, but the hind end of the body is thinner and divided to form two
corners, while the head is more or less free, or outstanding. The pupae
are of great interest, inasmuch as in a few cases they do not suspend
themselves in any way, but lie on the ground; sometimes in a very
feeble cocoon or cell. There are no cremasteral hooks. The pupae of
the Grayling butterfly, Hipparchia semele, has been found in loose soil a
quarter of an inch below the surface. The chrysalis of the Scotch Argus,
Erebia aethiops, was found by Mr. Buckler to be neither suspended nor
attached, but placed in a perpendicular position, head upwards,
amongst the grass. In the majority of cases the pupa is, however,
suspended as is usual in Nymphalidae. Nothing is known as to the
nature of the peculiar inflation of the bases of the nervures of the front
wings; it is well shown in our common species of Coenonympha; this
character is not, however, constant throughout the family. There is in
South America a very remarkable group of Satyrides consisting of the
genera Cithaerias and Haetera, in which the wings are very delicate
and transparent, bearing on the greater part of their area remote fine
hairs instead of scales; there are nevertheless some scaled patches
about the margins, and one or more of the ringed marks characteristic
of the Satyrides; while in some species the distal portions of the hind
wings are tinted with carmine. The species of the genus Pierella
connect these transparent Satyrids with the more ordinary forms.
According to Wallace the habits of these fairy-like forms are those
characteristic of the family in general. The genus Elymnias has been
separated by some authorities as a sub-family, or even as a family,
Elymniidae, chiefly on the ground of a slight peculiarity in the
termination of the branches of the veins at the outer angle of the front
wings. The Elymnias are said to be of a mimetic nature, having a
greater or less resemblance to butterflies of various other divisions;
there is also a considerable difference in appearance between their
own sexes. The larva of E. undularis is known; it is of the form usual in
Satyrides, and lives on the palm Corypha. About 50 species, ranging
from India to Australia, with two in Africa, are known of this interesting
group.
Sub-Fam. 4. Morphides.—There is no cell on the hind wing, the

discocellular nervule being absent (Fig. 161, II. B). Caterpillars smooth
or spiny, with the extremity of the body divided; frequently gregarious.
These Insects have become notorious from the extraordinary brilliancy
of blue colour exhibited by the upper surface of the wings of the typical
genus Morpho. The species of Morpho are all Insects of large size, but
with wings enormous in proportion to the body; this latter part is carried
in a sort of cradle formed by the inner parts of the margins of the hind
wings. Although an arrangement of this kind is seen in numerous other
butterflies, yet there is perhaps none in which it is carried to quite such
a pitch of perfection as it is in Morpho, where, on the under surface no
part of the body behind the posterior legs can be seen. There are only
about 100 species of Morphides, and 50 of these are included in
Morpho, which is peculiar to tropical and sub-tropical America; the other
half of the family is divided among ten or twelve genera, found in the
Indo-Malay region; there being none in Africa. The eastern Morphides,
though fine Insects, are not to be compared, either in size or brilliancy,
with their American allies. The species of Morpho are apparently found
only in the great forests of South America, where they are far from rare;
some have a flapping and undulating flight, straight onwards along the
alleys of the forest, and near the ground; others are never seen except
steadily gliding with outstretched wings from 20 to 100 feet above the
ground, where they move across sunny spaces between the crowns of
the taller trees; the low-flyers settle frequently on the ground to suck the
juices from fallen fruit, but the members of the other section never
descend to the ground. As regards the caterpillars, W. Müller tells
us[218] that the spines they are armed with break off, and enter the skin,
if the creatures are carelessly handled. Four of the five species known
to him are conspicuously coloured with black, red, yellow and white.
The individuals are gregarious. The larvae of M. achilles sit in
companies, often of more than 100 individuals, on trunks of trees, and
so form a conspicuous patch. The caterpillars of M. epistrophis hang
together as red clumps on the twigs of their food-plants. Hence it
appears that in this genus we have an exception to the rule that night-
feeding caterpillars rest in a hidden manner during the day.
Sub-Fam. 5. Brassolides.—Large butterflies, with the cell of the hind

wing closed, and usually with a small adjoining prediscoidal cell. Larva
not very spiny; thinner at the two ends, the tail bifid, the head
perpendicular and margined with spines. This small sub-family includes
less than 100 species arranged in about eight genera, all South
American. They have the very unusual habit of resting during the day
like moths, becoming active only late in the afternoon. They are truly
noble Insects; although not possessed of the brilliant colours of
Morpho, they are adorned, especially on the under surface, with
intricate lines and shades most harmoniously combined, while the
upper surface is frequently suffused with blue or purple. This sub-family
attains its highest perfection in the genus Caligo; they are enormous
Insects, and some of them not rare. The larva of C. eurylochus (Fig.
179) during early life is green, and sits on the leaf of a Musa, but after
the third moult it becomes brown and hides itself among the dry leaves.
It is common in the gardens of Rio de Janeiro, where its pupae are
found on the walls, like those of our white butterflies here.
Sub-Fam. 6. Acraeides.—Submedian nervure of fore wings not forked

at the base; the median without spur. Cells closed. Palpi in section
cylindric, sparingly set with hairs. Larva armed with branched spines. A
somewhat monotonous and uninteresting division; the size is moderate
or small, and the colours not artistic, but consisting of ill-arranged spots;
the under side of the hind wings very frequently diversified by
numerous line-like marks, radiately arranged, and giving place at the
base to a few spots. There are about 200 species known, of which the
majority are African; there are but few Oriental or South American
species. Some authorities consider there is only one genus, but others
prefer to adopt seven or eight divisions. Alaena is now placed in
Lycaenidae, though until recently it was considered to belong here. The
females of some species possess an abdominal pouch somewhat
similar to that of Parnassius.
The members of this sub-family are considered to be of the protected

kind.
Fig. 179—Larva of Caligo (Pavonia) eurylochus. Rio de Janeiro. × 1.

(After Burmeister.)
Sub-Fam. 7. Heliconiides.—Submedian nervure of front wing not
forked; median with a short spur near the base. Cell of hind wing closed
by a perfect nervule. Palpi compressed, with scales at the sides, in front
covered with hairs. Male with an elongate unjointed, female with a four-
jointed, front tarsus. Caterpillars set with branched spines. This family is
peculiar to tropical America and consists of only two genera, Heliconius
and Eueides, with about 150 species; but it is one of the most
characteristic of the South American groups of Butterflies. It is very
closely allied to the Nymphalides, especially to the genera Metamorpha
and Colaenis, but is readily distinguished by the perfectly-formed
nervules that close the wing-cells. The wings are longer and narrower
than in Nymphalides, and the colour, though exhibiting much diversity,
is on the whole similar to that of the heavily-scaled forms of Ithomiides
of the genera Tithorea, Melinaea, Melanitis; there being in several
cases a great resemblance between species of the two groups. A
frequent feature in one group of Heliconius is that the hind wing bears a
patch of red prolonged outwards by angular radiating marks. The
individuals of certain species—H. melpomene and H. rhea—are known
to execute concerted dances, rising and falling in the air like gnats;
when some of them withdraw from the concert others fill their places. H.
erato exhibits the very rare condition of trichroism, the hind wings being
either red, blue, or green. Schatz states that the different forms have
been reared from a single brood of larvae. The caterpillars of
Heliconiides live on Passiflorae, and are said to be very similar to our
European Argynnis-caterpillars. The chrysalids are very spinous. We
may here remark that considerable confusion exists in entomological
literature in consequence of Ithomiides having been formerly included
in this sub-family; for remarks formerly made as to "Heliconiides," but
that really referred only to Ithomiides, have been interpreted as
referring to Heliconiides of the present system.
The Heliconiides seem remarkably plastic as regards colour, and are

therefore exponents of "homoeochromatism." Bates says, as regards
them: "In tropical South America a numerous series of gaily-coloured
butterflies and moths, of very different families, which occur in
abundance in almost every locality a naturalist may visit, are found all
to change their hues and markings together, as if by the touch of an
enchanter's wand, at every few hundred miles, the distances being
shorter near the eastern slopes of the Andes than nearer the Atlantic.
So close is the accord of some half-dozen species (of widely different
genera) in each change, that he had seen them in large collections
classed and named respectively as one species."[219] Many of them are
believed to be permeated by nauseous fluids, or to possess glands
producing ill-smelling secretions.
Sub-Fam. 8. Nymphalides.—Cells, of both front and hind wing, either

closed only by imperfect transverse nervules or entirely open. Front
tarsus of the male unjointed and without spines, of the female four- or
five-jointed. Caterpillar either spined or smooth; in the latter case the
head more or less strongly horned or spined, and the apex of the body
bifid. This sub-family is specially characterised by the open cells of the
wings; the discocellulars, even when present, being frequently so
imperfect as to escape all but the most careful observation. The
Nymphalides include upwards of 150 genera and 2000 species. The
divisions having smooth larvae are separated by Kirby[220] and others
as a distinct sub-family (Apaturides). In Britain, as in most other parts of
the world, Nymphalides is the predominant group of butterflies. We
have eighteen species, among which are included the Fritillaries,
Admirals, Purple Emperor, and the various Vanessa—Peacock,
Camberwell Beauty, Red Admiral, Tortoise-shells, and Painted Lady. All
have spined caterpillars except the Emperor. In the temperate regions
of the northern hemisphere Vanessa may be considered the dominant
butterflies, they being very numerous in individuals, though not in
species, and being, many of them, in no wise discomfited by the
neighbourhood of our own species. Several of them are capable of
prolonging and interrupting their lives in the winged condition to suit our
climate; and this in a manner that can scarcely be called hibernation,
for they frequently take up the position of repose when the weather is
still warm, and on the other hand recommence their activity in the
spring at a very early period. This phenomenon may frequently be
noticed in the Tortoise-shell butterfly; it is as if the creature knew that
however warm it may be in the autumn there will be no more growth of
food for its young, and that in the spring vegetation is sure to be
forthcoming and abundant before long, although there may be little or
none at the time the creature resumes its activity. It is probable that the
habit may be in some way connected with an imperfect activity of the
sexual organs. It should, however, be recollected that many larvae of
butterflies hibernate as young larvae after hatching, and, sometimes,
without taking any food. Pyrameis cardui, the Painted Lady, is, taking all
into consideration, entitled to be considered the most ubiquitous of the
butterfly tribe. Its distribution is very wide, and is probably still
extending. The creature is found in enormous numbers in some
localities, especially in Northern and Eastern Africa; and when its
numbers increase greatly, migration takes place, and the Insect
spreads even to localities where it cannot maintain itself permanently. In
Britain it is probably during some years nearly or quite absent, but may
suddenly appear in large numbers as an immigrant. The favourite food
of the larva is thistles, but many other plants serve the Insect at times.
Vanessa, or Pyrameis,[221] atalanta, the Red Admiral, is common in the

Palaearctic and Nearctic regions, and extends its range to various
outlying spots. The most remarkable of these is the remote Hawaiian
Islands, where the Insect appears really to be now at home, though it is
associated with a larger and more powerful congener, P. tameamea.
Another interesting Vanessid is Araschnia levana, which is peculiar to
Europe, where it produces annually two generations so dissimilar to
one another that they passed current as two species, V. levana and V.
prorsa. Although intermediate forms are rare in nature they can be
induced by certain treatments applied to the larvae under human
control.
The dead-leaf butterflies of the genus Kallima belong to Nymphalides.

They are so shaped and coloured that when settled, with wings closed,
on a twig, the appearance is exactly that of a dry leaf; the exposed
surface is mottled with spots that look just like the patches of minute
fungi, etc. that are so common on decaying vegetation. The colour and
the spots on the under surface of this butterfly are very variable.
According to Mr. Skertchly,[222] we may presume that in the minute
details of these resemblances we have a case of hypertely similar to
that of the resemblance to Insects' minings exhibited by certain marks
on the tegmina of Pterochroza (mentioned in Vol. V. p. 322).
In South America there is a somewhat peculiar genus of Nymphalides
—Ageronia—that delights in settling on the trunks of trees rather than
on flowers or leaves. It was long since noticed that the the species of
Ageronia make a clicking noise; in some cases when on the wing, in
other cases by moving the wings when the Insect is settled. The object
of the noise is quite uncertain; it has been suggested that it is done in
rivalry or courtship, or to frighten away enemies. Bigg-Wether found,
however, that in South Brazil there is a lazy little bird to which this
sound serves as a signal, inducing it to descend from its perch and eat
the clicker. The mode in which the noise is produced is not quite clear.
Sir George Hampson has pointed out[223] that the fore wing bears at
the extreme base a small appendage bearing two hooks, and that two
other processes on the thorax play on these when the wing moves. His
suggestion that these hooks are the source of the sound seems highly
probable.
There is a great variety in the larvae of Nymphalides. In the Vanessa

group the body is armed with spines, each one of which bears shorter
thorns, the head being unadorned. The Fritillaries (Argynnis, Melitaea)
also have caterpillars of this kind. In many other forms the head itself is
armed with horns or spines of diverse, and frequently remarkable,
character. In Apatura and its allies the body is without armature, but the
head is perpendicular, the vertex bifid and more or less prolonged. The
caterpillar of our Purple Emperor, Apatura iris, is quite unlike any other
British caterpillar; in colour it is like a Sphingid larva—green with
oblique lateral stripes of yellow and red—but in form it is slug-like,
pointed behind, and it has on the head two rather long tentacle-like
horns. In the South American genus Prepona, the larva of which in
general form resembles that of Apatura there are no anal claspers, but
the extremity of the body is prolonged, forming a sort of tail.
Fam. 2. Erycinidae (Lemoniidae of some authors).—The female has

six perfectly formed legs, though the front pair is smaller. The male has
the coxae of the front legs forming a spine, and the tarsi unjointed,
without claws. This family consists of about 1000 species, usually of
rather small size, exhibiting a great variety of shape and coloration,
some of them being remarkably similar to some of the gay, diurnal
moths of South America. The palpi are usually small, but in Ourocnemis
they are large and porrect. The family is specially characteristic of
tropical America, but there is one small group of 30 or 40 species,
Nemeobiides, in the Eastern Hemisphere. We have one species in
Britain, Nemeobius lucina, the Duke of Burgundy Fritillary. Neither the
larvae nor the pupae of Erycinidae present any well-marked
characteristic feature, but exhibit considerable variety. According to Bar,
[224] some of the larvae are like those of moths; the caterpillar of
Meliboeus is said to be like that of a Liparis: the chrysalis has the short,
rounded form of that of the Lycaenidae, and is suspended with the head
down, and without a band round the body. The larvae of Eurygona are
gregarious. The pupae of some other forms adhere, heads downwards,
to branches. Scudder considers that this family is not distinct from
Lycaenidae, and that the Central American genus Eumaeus connects
the two. Reuter also treats Erycinidae as a division of Lycaenidae.
Sub-Fam. 1. Erycinides.—[Characters of the family.] Palpi not

unusually large. We place all the Erycinidae in this sub-family except
the following—
Sub-Fam. 2. Libytheides.—Butterflies of average size, with the palpi

large and porrect: the front legs of the male small, the tarsus reduced to
one joint: the front leg of the female of the normal structure, and but
little reduced in size. This division consists of the single genus Libythea,
with only a score of species. They are Insects somewhat like Vanessa
in appearance, but cannot fail to be recognised on account of the
peculiar palpi. The genus is of very wide distribution, occurring in most
parts of the warm and temperate continental regions, and it also occurs
in Mauritius and the Antilles.
The Libytheides have given rise to much difference of opinion amongst

systematists, some of whom assign them as a sub-family to the
Erycinidae, some to the Nymphalidae; while others treat them as a
family apart. The families Nymphalidae, Erycinidae and Lycaenidae are
so intimately allied, that Scudder is probably correct in considering
them to form really one huge family; if this view were adopted there
would be no difficulty in locating Libythea therein. If they be kept apart,
it is almost necessary to separate Libythea also; though possibly its
claims to be placed in Erycinidae slightly preponderate. The recently
described genus Ourocnemis to some extent connects Erycinides with
Libythaeides.[225]
Fam. 3. Lycaenidae.—The front legs but little smaller than the others:
in the male, however, the tarsus, though elongate, is only of one joint,
and is terminated by a single claw. No pad on the front tibia. Claws not
toothed. The Lycaenidae, or Blues, are, as a rule, of small size, but in
the tropics there are many that reach the average size of butterflies, i.e.
something about the stature of the Tortoise-shell butterfly. The family is
one of the larger of the divisions of butterflies, considerably more than
2000 species being at present known, and this number is still rapidly
increasing. Although blue on a part of the upper surface is a very
common feature in the group, it is by no means universal, for there are
many "Coppers," as well as yellow and white Lycaenidae. Many
species have delicate, flimsy appendages—tails—to the hind wings, but
in many others these are quite absent; and there are even tailed and
tailless forms of the same species. The members of the group
Lipteninae (Liptena, Vanessula, Mimacraea, etc.) resemble members of
other sub-families of Nymphalidae, and even of Pieridae. Lycaenidae
are well represented wherever there are butterflies; in Britain we have
18 species.
The larvae of this family are very peculiar, being short, thicker in the
middle, and destitute of the armature of spines so remarkable in many
other caterpillars. It has of late years been frequently recorded that
some of these larvae are attended by ants, which use their antennae to
stroke the caterpillars and induce them to yield a fluid of which the ants
are fond. Guénée had previously called attention[226] to the existence of
peculiar structures contained in small cavities on the posterior part of
the caterpillar of Lycaena baetica. These structures can be evaginated,
and, it is believed, secrete a fluid; Edwards and M‘Cook are of opinion
that they are the source of the matter coveted by the ants. The larvae
are without spines.
The caterpillars of the Blues have some of them strange tastes; more
than one has been recorded as habitually feeding on Aphidae and
scale-Insects. The pupae are, like the larvae, of short inflated form. By
a remarkable coincidence, the pupae of two species bear a
considerable resemblance to the heads of monkeys, or mummies. The
Lycaenid pupa is usually extremely consolidated, destitute of
movement, and is supported—in addition to the attachment by the
cremaster—by a silk thread girdling the middle. There are exceptions to
these rules, and according to Mr. Robson the pupa of Tajuria diaeus
hangs free, suspended from a leaf, and can move the body at the spot
where the abdominal segments meet the wing-cases in the dorsal line.
[227]
Fam. 4. Pieridae.—The six legs well developed, and similar in the

sexes; there is no pad on the front tibia. The claws of all the feet are
bifid, or toothed, and there is an empodium. There are upwards of 1000
species of Pieridae already known. Although several taxonomists treat
the Pieridae and Papilionidae as only subdivisions of one family, yet
they appear to be quite distinct, and the relationships of the former to
be rather with Lycaenidae. In Pieridae, white, yellow, and red are the
predominant colours, though there is much black also. It has recently
been ascertained that the yellow and red pigments, as well as the
white, are uric acid or derivatives therefrom.[228] The physiology of this
peculiarity has not yet been elucidated, so that we do not know whether
it may be connected with some state of the Malpighian vessels during
metamorphosis.
Our Garden-White, Brimstone, Clouded-yellows and Orange-tip

butterflies belong to this family; as does also the South American genus
formerly called Leptalis. This generic name, which is much mentioned
in literature owing to the resemblance of the species of the genus to
Heliconiides, has now disappeared; Leptalis having been divided into
various genera, while the name itself is now considered merely a
synonym of Dismorphia.
The African Insect, Pseudopontia paradoxa, has nearly transparent

wings, no club to the antennae, a remarkably small cell on the wing,
and an arrangement of the nervules not found in any other butterfly;
there being only ten nervules at the periphery of the front wing, and

Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms For Cad Christian Gentil Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms For Cad Christian Gentil Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms

for CAD Christian Gentil

ISTE Ltd John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

© ISTE Ltd 2021

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021932086

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Chapter 1. The BC-IFS Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.3.8. Constraint resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Chapter 2. Design Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Chapter 3. Surface NURBS, Subdivision Surfaces and BC-IFS . . . 129

Chapter 4. Building Operations, Assistance to Design

This work introduces a model of geometric representation for describing and

Geometric representation models are mathematical tools integrated into

The geometric representation model we present here is based on the fractal

Readers unwilling to be concerned with mathematical formalisms can get to grips

I.1. Fractals for industry: what for?

Figure I.1. 3D tree built by iterative modeling (source:

Thus, since the development of computers in the 1950s, computer-aided geometric

Each of these processes imposes constraints, for example, concerning collision

However, the emergence of additive manufacturing techniques has caused an

I.2. Fractals for industry: how?

We propose a formalism based on standard iterated function systems (IFS)

The BC-IFS Model

In this chapter, in section 1.1, we begin by intuitively introducing the notion of

1.1. Self-similarity and IFS

There are different deﬁnitions of self-similarity. For example, in the ﬁeld of

In fractal geometry, it has a different meaning.

Geometric Modeling of Fractal Forms for CAD,

D EFINITION.– An object is called self-similar if it is composed of copies of itself.

This deﬁnition is not rigorous and further clariﬁcation has to be provided.

Figure 1.1. Schematic illustration of self-similarity. The black tree can

From this deﬁnition and this introductory example, a number of questions

– Is the shape of an object completely determined from its self-similarity?

In order to better understand the self-similarity property and provide an early

From the second example, the following observations can be derived:

Figure 1.3. The self-similarity property, as shown in Figure 1.2, is

C OMMENTS ON F IGURE 1.3.– The same construction process is used. In the

1.1.1. Mathematical deﬁnitions and reminders

The concept of self-similarity was formalized by Hutchinson, based on iterated

on an iterative process, it is then appropriate to choose workspaces with “good

We also recall the concept of contracting transformations and ﬁxed-points. These

1.1.1.1. Working space

A complete space is a space in which any Cauchy sequence converges. Intuitively,

The Hausdorff distance is a distance between sets. To intuitively understand this

Figure 1.4. Hausdorff distance. For a color version of

P ROPERTY.– If (X, d) is a complete metric space, then (H(X), dX ) is a complete

1.1.1.2. Geometric transformations

D EFINITION.– A transformation is a function whose deﬁnition domain is equal to the

D EFINITION.– A transformation T : X → X, with (X, d) as a metric space, is

The concept of contractive transformation appears implicitly in the self-similarity

E XAMPLE.– Contractive transformations:

Here, we introduce a fundamental theorem on contractive transformations: the

T HEOREM.– Let (X, d) be a complete metric space and T a contractive transformation

If a function is not contractive, it may have several ﬁxed points, or none.

(f (0) = 0 and f (1) = 1).

Figure 1.5. Example of self-similarity involving non-contractive

C OMMENTS ON F IGURE 1.5.– The transformation T0 transforms the overall

1.1.3.1. The Cantor set

Figure 1.6. The Cantor set successively represented at the iteration

1.1.3.2. The Cartesian product of two Cantor sets

Figure 1.7. Cartesian product of two Cantor sets successively

1.1.3.3. The Sierpinski triangle

1.1.3.4. The Menger sponge