Chapter 1 1 

 MOTHS 



The moths, technically known as Heterocerous Lepidoptera, 

 are far more numerous than the butterflies. A list published in 

 1917 gives 7834 species in America north of Mexico. Formerly, 

 it was customary to divide them into the larger moths, Macro- 

 lepidoptera, and the smaller ones, Microlepidoptera. This 

 arrangement proved quite unscientific, since some very large 

 moths are much more closely related to the little ones than they 

 are to the forms with which we used to associate them. The 

 most primitive moths are so similar to caddis-flies that Comstock 

 formerly proposed to associate them with Trichoptera. In the 

 course of evolution the number of veins in the wings has been re- 

 duced, and many other modifications and specializations have 

 occurred. In the large silk-moths (Saturniidae) the mouth parts 

 are reduced to mere vestiges; all the feeding is done in the cater- 

 pillar state. In the plume moths (Pterophoridae) the wings are 

 split into plume-like divisions. A still more extreme case is that 

 of the many-plumed Orneodes, a small moth with each wing 

 divided into six plumes. It is common in Colorado, and may 

 often be found in houses. Our species has been called 0. montana, 

 but is said to be identical with the European 0. hucbneri. If so, 

 it is a member of the circumpolar fauna, for its wide distribution 

 in all sorts of out-of-the-way places in the west makes it im- 

 probable that it has been introduced by man. The clear-winged 

 moths (/Egeriidae) have the wings partly transparent, and on 

 this account as well as their banded bodies, closely resemble wasps; 

 the larvae burrow in the stems and crowns of plants, and some- 

 times do a great deal of damage. Not all clear-winged moths 

 are ./Egeriidae, however. The larger robust moths of the genus 

 Haemorrhagia, looking more like bumble bees than wasps, belong 

 to the group of sphinx moths (Sphingidae), and in spite of the clear 

 wings have no affinity with ,/Egeriidae whatever. Some of the 

 early writers did not appreciate this, hardly believing that nature 

 could attain similar results quite independently; or, being without 

 the conception of evolution, merely wishing to make a classifi- 

 cation to facilitate recognition. 



224 



