138 PROCEEDINGS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 



L. (the type species of the Tortricidae) than on many true Ole- 

 threutids. 



It can readily be seen therefore, that the presence or absence 

 of this part means nothing as far as family or sub-family distinc- 

 tions in the Tortricoidea are concerned. At best it is a generic 

 difference and under the present accepted classification not even 

 that, 



There is, however, a rather striking difference between the 

 genitalia of the Tortricids and Olethreutids in the structure and 

 development of the harpes. In the Olethreutidae (except in a few 

 species where the costal margin is free to the base thus forming 

 double harps) the harps are strongly chitinized, emarginate, with 

 sacculus not extended into a free arm but fused with the ^nosta, 

 leaving a more or less restricted opening at the base, the costal edge 

 projecting in the form of a short hook; usually a well defined anal 

 angle, cucullus and corona; transtilla absent, 1 



In the Tortricidae the harpes are shorter in proportion to the 

 whole genitalia usually rather weakly chitinized; widest at base: 

 tapering or squared; without pronounced anal angle, or well 

 defined cucullus or corona; sacculus narrow and. not fusing with 

 costa: transtilla normally present and developed. 



From the Glyphipterygidae which they equal in all other genitalic 

 characters, the Tortricidae may be distinguished by the articula- 

 tion of the aedoeagus: In Tortricidae it articulates on an arm 

 (or forked projection) from the plate of the Juxta. In Gly- 

 phipterygidae it passes through an opening in the plate. 



As a means of specific identification among the Olethreutids, 

 particularly between American and European species which are 

 apt to be confused, the male genitalia are of immense value. 

 Between closely related species the differences in structure are 

 often marked. Consistent generic characters are more difficult 

 to discover. At first glance this seems hopeless in the Tortri- 

 coidea. It is very probable, however, that even here we may find 

 good characters for generic differentiation if proper allowance is 

 made for the wide range of specific modifications and if such 

 characters as hold constant for several species are checked against 

 the more diagnostic setal and venational character of the larva 

 and adult, 



Alone and unsupported they would not be a safe guide for the 

 classification of genera. 



'The terminology of the parts is adopted from F. N. Pierce, 'Geni- 

 talia of the British Noctuidae" (1909), and "Ganitalia of the British Geo- 

 metridae" (1914). 



