46 THE CANADIAN ENTOMOLOGIST. 



Y. Ent Soc, III., pp. 18-2 1), but I do not find that the htrvse present 

 any remarkable diversity of structure. Some are exceedingly generalized; 

 so much so as to suggest that they represent the stem form which gave 

 rise to the Noctuina (Agrotides, Grote) as well as to the higher Micros. 

 (Tineides), and I am inclined to confirm Mr. Hampson's remark, quoted 

 by Mr. Tutt (p. 360): "As far as I am able to judge, the Tineidiv 

 represent the ramifications of one branch of the Lepidoptera, some 

 families generalized, others highly specialized, and not a heterogeneous 

 collection of families sprung from various parts of the Lepidopterous tree 

 as the old family Bombyces did." 



(3) My position for the Pyralidfe among the true Micros, is shown to 

 be at variance with the conclusions of Chapman and Hampson. This is 

 a real difference, and is only confirmed by further material. In fact, the 

 difference extends, as regards Dr. Chapman's classification, to all his 

 Pyraloid obtecta?, which I have had before me. This is easily reconciled 

 if we may suppose that the obtected pupal character has been developed 

 independently, but in a parallel manner in more than one line of descent. 

 In fact, I think in at least three, for I believe the Sphingides and Bomby- 

 cides (Saturnians) are derived from a stem ancestral to that of the Tineides 

 and Agrotides, whether the former two superfamilies be closely related or 

 not. At any rate, I am content to let this contradiction stand for the 

 present. 



Finally, I would correct a passage in Mr. Tutt's paper where I am 

 unintentionally misquoted (p. 347), apparently from a misunderstanding. 

 I did not intend to imply that the most primitive form of tubercle is found 

 " exclusively in the Jugate and Psychidse," as Mr. Tutt's quotation reads. 

 The original sentence is : " It is found in the less specialized families of 

 all the groups .... and exclusively in the Jugat;^ and in the Psychida?." 

 As a matter of fact, I separated the Psychidc-e thus from a consideration 

 of the supposed homology of tubercles i. and ii. (see Synopsis, Ann. N. Y. 

 Acad. Sci., VIII., p. 203), not from the generahzed condition of the setiv, 

 which clearly could not be done, as the original sentence shows. I find 

 now that this separation was due to a misapprehension, and the Psychidse 

 really fall in with the other Tineides. (Compare Hyponomeuta cognatellus 

 for a similar reversal of tubercles i. and ii., by which I was deceived.) 

 However, Mr. Tutt's misinterpretation of the passage does not affect his 

 conclusions essentially. 



