100 GEO. D. HULST. 



Mr. E. L. Ragonot, in a paper in tlie p]nt. Mo. Mag. vol. xxii, 

 writing upon the Phycitidse of Great Britain, gives a history of the 

 genera represented in its fauna, and ])r()])o.ses a division of the family 

 into two subfamilies: first, Piiycitinie and second Anerastinje, dis- 

 tinguished from each other by the presence and absence, or nearly 

 so, of the tongue. He also, p. 31, proposes a new genus Heterographis, 

 which is represented in our fauna. In December, 1887, Mr. Ragonot, 

 in the Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France, published 

 diagnoses of twenty-three genera from material of the European 

 fauna, of which genera the following have been found to have repre- 

 sentitive species in our country : Anoristia, Staudingeria and Sahiria. 



In December, 1888, Mr. Ragonot, in a paper privately printed 

 and distributed, described, from mostly North American material, 

 twenty new genera as follows : Fhyeitopsis, Dasypyga, Promy/ea, Or- 

 fho/epsls, Lipographis, Sarata, Macrorrhinia, Vitula, Ephestiodes, Eu- 

 rythmiii, Honiigia, Clrls, Martla, Aurora, Navasota, Peoria, Bandera, 

 Statina, Tampa, and Ccenochroa. Mr. Grote, knowing that Ci7is was 

 preoccupied, has since proposed Ragonotia in its place (Can. Ento. 

 XX, 75). Later, Mr. Ragonot proposed DoUchorrhlnia for Macror- 

 rhinia, which was also preoccupied. The name Hornigia is also pre- 

 occupied, having been used by Mr. Ragonot before for a genus in 

 the Galleriidse. It was there a synonym of Lamoria Walker. The 

 laws of Zoology, however, determine that it nujst thus remain a 

 synonym, and cannot I'epresent any (jther group in Zoology. 



In April, 1888, Mr. Ragonot, in another private pa|)er, described 

 fifty-eight new genera from exotic material, three of which, Laodamia, 

 Diviana and Ca/era, are American. 



In a Catalogue of North American Rhycitidse (Ento. Am. vol. v, 

 p. 114, 1889) Mr. Ragonot names two more genera, Glyptoeera for 

 eonsobrineUa Zell., and Lietilia for coccinivora Comst., and ephestiella 

 Rag. I am not aware that these genera have yet been described. 



In his descriptions of genera Mr. Ragonot makes use of all the 

 differences of structure used of by both Zeller and Meyrick. He 

 also makes use of the structure of the tongue, and so introduces a 

 new and important feature into classification. For some reason, 

 however, he seems to take little notice of the ocelli, and of the male 

 genital armature. He also does not seem to know of the structure 

 of the maxillary ])alpi. It is, however, fair to say that his descrip- 

 tions are only brief diagnoses, written in anticipation of a promised 

 monograph, and published, according to his own statement, only to 



