THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 95 



OxN THE TERM CYDOSIIN.E. 



BY A. RADCLIFFE GROTE, A. M., BREMEN, GERMANY. 



In my check list, New York, May, 1882, I first proposed the col- 

 lective term Cydosiince, having for its sub-family type the well- 

 known Cydosia nobilitella. I associated with it Penthetria, Hy. Ed., 

 not from any study of this genus, unknown to me in nature, but 

 merely on the strength of certain of Mr. Edwards's remarks. This 

 latter genus, under the name Tantura, Kirby, is now referred to the 

 Lithosiidce by Neumoegen and Dyar, and probably correctly. I ex- 

 cluded the genus Oeta, previously referred here, as I believed it 

 to belong to the Tineidce, as indicated by Zeller. To this sub-family 

 Cydosimce, Grote, the genus Cerathosia is also referred by Neumoegen 

 and Dyar, following Smith's more recent opinion. In 1882, I re- 

 garded Cydosia, then, as the type of a sub-family of arctiiform 

 Zygcenidce. In 1893, Dyar regards it as the type of a sub-family 

 of zygaeniform Arctiidce. This is the amount of the difference ; but, 

 in any event, I may .point out that the term Cydosiiiuc belongs to 

 me. And I do not expect that the last word as to its family position 

 has been said. In his Preliminary Catalogue, Can. Ent., xxi., 169, 

 Mr. Smith refers the genus Gnophaela to the Arctiime, p. 172. 

 This genus, according to Neumoegen and Dyar, belongs to the Fe7-i- 

 copidce. The genera, previously regarded by me as arctiiform 

 Zygienidw, following Dr. Packard, under the term Glaucopes, are now 

 divided into two families : Zygcenidce and Pericopidce, excluding the 

 Cydosiince. For the genera, referred by me to the Castniares. the 

 distinct family Agaristidce is retained. This seems to be the amount 

 of the difference. In any event, I point out the fact that, up to quite 

 recently. Dr. Packard had not abandoned his view of the family solid- 

 arity of his family Zygcenidce, and that this certainly was not the case 

 in 1882; hence any criticism of my list, based on more recent discoveries, 

 is totally irrelevant. On the contrary, my list offers a term Cydosiimr, 

 of which the most recent classification (1893-4) avails itself. Further, 

 Mr. Smith refers, in 1889, Melanchroia to the Arctiince. No one 

 else, I believe, has ever placed it there, nor has it stayed there long. 

 This placing of Gnophaela and Melanchroia among the Arctiitice might 

 indeed provoke an unfriendly criticism, but a little reflection shows that 

 all such mistakes are in due course corrected as we add to our 

 knowledge of structure. Already in 1891 the two genera suddenly 



