OF WASHINGTON. 79 



entomologists, yet the first species described by Miiller in 

 1767 was placed correctly in Hemerobius, as that genus was 

 then understood. Other authors, however, placed them in the 

 caddice-flies, in the Psocidae, and in the Aleyrodidae. West- 

 wood was the first to show their true position, and Burmeister 

 the first to consider them a distinct family. 



Very little work has, until recently, been done on the Coniop- 

 terygidae, either in this country or in Europe. In 1885 Dr. 

 Franz Low published a revision of the then known European 

 forms, and recently Dr. G. Enderlein of Berlin has given us 

 several papers, including an elaborate classification and a mono 

 graph. On one important point, however, I differ from that 

 author as to the type of the genus Coniopteryx. Curtis a gives 

 C. tineifonnis as the type of his genus Coniopteryx, and gives 

 figures of the venation. In his generic description he says 

 that there are three closed cells in both wings ; and the figures 

 show that in the hind wing the median vein is forked as well 

 as the radial sector, and that in the fore wings the connecting 

 veinlet from the cubitus runs into the lower branch of the 

 median vein, instead of directly into the median vein ; in other 

 words, the venation is on the same plan as Low figures for 

 C. aleyrodiformis. Low considers that Curtis had two species 

 in his C. tineiformis, for Curtis says, " antennae about 25 

 joints," and the size given is too small for C. aleyrodiformis. 

 He admits that the form Curtis figures is C. aleyrodiformis, 

 while the form fitting to the size and antennae, he says, is 

 C. lactea Wesm. Curtis may not have been careful in counting 

 the antennal joints, for it is not easy to be sure of their number, 

 and the size as given by him may have been, a misprint. But 

 even if Curtis did have two species before him, surely the 

 name must hold for that form which he figures, and to which 

 figures he refers in both the specific and generic descriptions. 

 This reference in the specific description to the figures makes 

 the venation exhibited by the figures an integral part of the 

 description, a part fully as important as the number of antennal 

 joints or the size. Moreover, Tullgren, in a recent paper on 

 the Swedish species, claims that the male of lactea Wesm. has 

 28 joints in the antennae instead of 25, so that the differences 

 in this respect between the two forms is less than was sup 

 posed by previous writers. There cannot be the faintest doubt 

 as to what the figures of Curtis represent, and since he consid 

 ered them typical of both genus and species, they must stand 

 for C. tineiformis, rather than the doubtful supposition that 

 Curtis had C. lactea before him, a form totally at variance 

 with the figures. 



a Brit. Entom., 1834^ Plate 528 and text. 



