11 



again. Glaucopteryx is placed above Carsia and Lithostege, though evidently 

 lower than the latter two genera. 



The great merit of Hiibner's classification is his recognition of many 

 subdivisions of the families (in Latreille's sense) of the Lepidoptera, and the 

 subdivision "into groups which correspond to modern ideas of a genus. 1 

 have found it necessary to set aside many modern genera, and adopt Iliib- 

 ner's names for them as fairly entitled to recognition. 



In 1K19, Samouelle, in the "Entomologists' Useful Compendium," gave 

 the following arrangement: Phalcenidce, stirps i, larva with twelve feet, 

 Phalcena margaritaria ; stirps ii. larva with ten feet, Uipparchus, Bupalus, 

 Geometra, Ourapteryx, Biston, Abraxas. 



In 1825, Latrcille, in his "Families Naturelles," left out of his Phalce- 

 nite.s, which he regards as simply a tribe of his family JVocturna, embracing 

 all the moths below the Sphinges, the Platyptericince, and followed the same 

 arrangement of the true Phaleenidee as he proposed in 1807. 



The Phalcenites are strangely placed between the Tortrices, comprising 

 the modern Deltoids (in part) and Pyralids (in part) and Cramhites. 



Latreille's arrangement as regards the succession of genera is certainly 

 much inferior to that of Linnaeus, and his conceptions of the families of the 

 Lepidoptera much less carefully elaborated than in other orders of insects. 

 In the " Families Naturelles" he retrogrades in his views regarding a family, 

 as applied to the Lepidoptera, as since 1807 he considers the Phalcenites as 

 forming the " Familia octatia" of the Lepidoptera. 



In 1827, Treitschke, in the continuation of Ochsenheimer's " Schmetter- 

 linge -non Europa , \ uses the term Geometra for the group, and makes no sub- 

 divisions above genera. He begin,- the description of the genera with 

 Ennomos, and the remaining genera follow on, thus: Accena (TJrapteryx), 

 Ellopia, Geometra, Aspilates, Crocallis, Gnophos, Boarmia, Amphidasys, Psodos, 

 Fidonia, Chesias, Cabera. 



In 1829, Duponchel, in the "Histoire Naturelle des Lqridoirtcres den 

 France", IV, proposed the following division of the Phaleenidee into forty- 

 eight genera : 



I. Chenilles h quatorze pattes — Rumia. 

 II. Chenilles a douze pattes — Metrocampa. 



III. Chenilles a dix pattes — Ennomos, Himera, Crocallis, Ai/u r <">aa 

 Eurymene, Aventia, Philobia, Epione, Trimandra, Hemithea, Geometra, Am- 



