332 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol.88 



Eighteen genera, 46 species, and 2 varieties are here treated. Of 

 these, 8 genera and 8 species are described as new. The genus Zopho- 

 dia Hiibner is included because, although not a cactus insect, its 

 structural characters link it closely with the cactus-feeding group and 

 also because a number of cactus phycitids either have been described 

 in that genus or later referred to it. In addition to Zophodia itself 

 there are a few species now listed in Eumysia Dyar and Laetilia 

 Eagonot that share most of the structural characters of the cactus- 

 feeding group. To the best of my knowledge, however, they are not 

 cactus insects and belong to a different though closely allied group. 

 They will be treated separately in a later paper. 



I am greatly obliged to Alan P. Dodd and R. C. Mundell, of the 

 Australian Prickly-Pear Board, for specimens, larval and adult, of 

 the tropical species. Nearly all the reared material in this group 

 from South America has come to the National collection from Mr. 

 Dodd, Mr. Mundell, and Mr. Haywood or has been received through 

 them. Mr. Dodd also has sent me his unpublished notes on the dis- 

 tribution, food plants,^ and larval habits of the tropical species. 

 With his permission I am using such of this information as is needed 

 for purely taxonomic purposes. His forthcoming book will contain 

 more detailed accounts of the various species, their life histories and 

 earlier stages. 



The Phycitidae is a family of prime economic importance. For its 

 size it probably contains a greater percentage of species of concern 

 to the economic entomologist than any other family of the Lepidop- 

 tera. It is important, therefore, that its members be classified in 

 something approaching a natural order, that the genera and their 

 grouping conform to the facts of biology and host relationship, and 

 that larvae and unassociated females may be identified as well as the 

 male moths. In the cactus-feeding group, as also in some other 

 groups, we have enough information to attempt such a classification ; 

 and in future papers I hope to be able to follow through the scheme 

 here adopted, namely, a definition of genera based upon adult and, as 

 far as they are known, larval structural characters, host associations, 

 wing pattern, and biology. I do not flatter myself with the thought 

 that I shall entirely succeed ; but the trial at least is imperative. 



At present the classification of the Phycitinae is a hopeless muddle. 

 No one seems to know just what a generic concept stands for or to 

 what genus a given species (which is not a genotype) should go. 

 This is not so much the fault of any entomologist as it is of the 

 phycitids themselves. The family is a fluid one. There are few 

 obvious, hard-and-fast divisions anywhere, nor can real divisions, 

 when established, be defined in simple, categorical terms; for there 



1 Plant names used in this paper follow Britton and Rose, "The Cactaceae," Carnegie 

 Inst. Washington Publ. 248, vols. 1-4, 1919-1923. 



