NORTH AMERICAN LEPIDOPTERA. 99 



parts of the world may cover some of the genera more recently 

 created. 



Blauchard has described the genus Ehismopalpm with his species 

 anr/Hstalis = licpioseUas Zeil. as type. 



Von Heineraaun (vSchmet. Bruns. Pyralidse, 1865) largely follows 

 Zeller, showing very little individuality. In his ideas of genera he 

 shows no progress, but rather retrogression. He speaks of the vena- 

 tion, but makes no real use of it in the formation or determination 

 of genera. 



Herrich-SchaefFer (Sys. Bear. Schmet. Eur. 1849) gave a synopsis 

 of the genera of the Phycitidje, created some new genera, and ex- 

 pressed opinion.s which were radically different from those of Zeller, 

 but which have obtained no currency among entomologists. He 

 places the Phycitida? under the Crandiidie, considering Peiiijjeh'a and 

 Xephopteryx as true Crambids and the rest of the Phycitidiie as oc- 

 cupying subfamily position. His work has very little to recommend 

 it, as it is in many respects of the most superficial character. iVt the 

 same time he called attention to venation, and made use of it for the 

 determination of genei'a, though in a very careless and inconsistent 

 manner. 



Mr. Grote (Bull. Geol. Surv. Terr. vol. iv. 1878) wrote somewhat 

 upon the genera and species of the Phycitidae of North America. 

 Here and in detached articles of periodicals, he established as genera 

 MegapJvjci.^ = Me/ifani Walker, Puilpedis, Dukruma = Zophodia 

 Hiib. Meropiera, Pyla, Ambesa and Honora. He made use of structure, 

 but did not understand the European genera, and thus made no 

 advance. 



Mr. E. Meyrick has written upon the Phycitidse of Australia 

 and the adjoining islands, and his papers have been published in 

 various foreign periodicals, principally in the Transactions of the 

 Linnaean Society of New South Wales, vols, iii, iv, and vii, and in 

 the Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, in the 

 volume for 1884:. 



In these papers he, in addition to some of the structural characters 

 used by Zeller, emphasizes the value of venation, for which Zeller 

 had so very little regard, and which Herrich-Schaeffer so poorly used. 

 This use of venation was an important advance. Mr. iMeyrick, 

 however, rather belittles some of the structural details made use of 

 by Zeller, such as the palpi and ocelli. Mr. Meyrick has described 

 many genera, of which not one has a representative in the North 

 American fauna, so fai" as I know. 



