THE CACTUS-FEEDING PHYCITINAE — HEINRICH 333 



is hardly a single structural character that does not break down 

 somewhere. In any large series of any given species there are speci- 

 mens wherein the venation, for example, varies from that of the 

 genus or the larger group. The palpal characters grade into one 

 another by almost imperceptible degrees and are apt to explode 

 altogether. For example, a perfectly good Dioryctria may have an 

 aigrettelike male maxillary palpus (which should place it in 

 Sdlebria) while its most closely related species and one hardly dis- 

 tinguishable otherwise may have a perfectly normal squamous pal- 

 pus. The male of one species may have a short cell and seven veins 

 in the hind wing while its female exhibits a long cell and eight veins. 

 Wing pattern and color also vary to some extent but on the whole 

 are more reliable for specific placement than are venational, palpal, 

 or antennal characters for genera. The genitalia, both male and 

 female, seem to be more constant than other structures and to offer 

 the best characters for the identification of species and genera; but 

 they, too, must be used with caution. A classification based upon 

 them alone would be as misleading as any other. 



Up to the present only one serious and noteworthy attempt has 

 been made to classify the family, that of Ragonot in his monumental 

 "Monographie des Phycitinae et des Galleriinae." ^ He left the 

 second volume unfinished at his death, but Hampson completed it 

 from his notes, and Hampson himself was working on a generic 

 revision of the Phycitinae when he retired from active entomological 

 work. Ragonot's system was based chiefly upon venation, palpal 

 structure, vestiture, and secondary male characters. In its broader 

 outlines it was a natural classification; but its great reliance upon 

 secondary male characters made it unworkable for unassociated 

 females; and many species were then and later described from such 

 females and had to be placed by guesswork. The genera themselves 

 were more or less artificial entities and (except for the monotypic 

 genera and some with very few species) usually included species not 

 closely related to one another or not conforming on all definitive 

 characters. 



Hulst, who worked contemporaneously with Ragonot, followed, 

 in his own careless fashion, the Ragonot system. He made some 

 attempt to use the male genitalia, but his observations were entirely 

 superficial and sporadic, and his statements concerning these struc- 

 tures are more often misleading than not. Dyar, Hampson, Meyrick, 

 Caradja, and later authors have published only descriptions of new 

 genera and species. Dr. A. J. T. Janse has made an extensive study 

 of the South African Phycitidae and has given special attention to 



» Mfimolres sur les Lfipldoptferes, toI. 7, 1893 ; toI. 8, 1901. 



