BAGWORM MOTHS OF THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 21 



How many tineids also possess this anal tuft is not known presently, 

 but more may be expected. The remaining two divisions recognized 

 by Forbes have wingless females. The Talaeporiinae contains females 

 that retain the normal body appendages and mate outside the larval 

 case. In the Psychinae species exist in which all external appendages 

 of the female are vestigial and copulation occurs within the case. 



The two genera Fumaria and EpichnoiJterix are related closely as 

 indicated by the males and the immature stages. The adult females, 

 however, are very divergent. The female of Fumaria possesses a 

 normal complement of legs and antennae that are lacking conspicu- 

 ously in the vermiform female of Epichnoiiterix. Thus, following the 

 classification of Forbes, Fumaria would be placed in the Talaeporiinae, 

 and Efichnopterix, in the Psychinae. Other workers, apparently 

 not realizing the condition of the female in Epichnopterix, also have 

 erred in this manner. 



Emphasis on the structure of the male and less familiarity with the 

 female has resulted in a different partitioning of the family than that 

 by Forbes. Kozhantshikov (1956), in one of the more recent and 

 comprehensive works on the family, recognizes two subfamilies based 

 largely on the anal veins in the forewings. He includes approxi- 

 mately the same assemblage of species within the family as previous 

 authors and unites the Lypusinae and Talaeporiinae of Forbes into a 

 single subfamily, Psycheoidinae. Kozhantshikov's second division, 

 Psychinae, corresponds essentially to that of several earlier workers; 

 however, he places Epichnopterix and Fumaria in the Psycheoidinae 

 even though the female of the former is similar to that of the higher 

 psychids. Duponchel and Herrich-Schaffer recognized a smiilar 

 division approximately a hundred years earlier. 



The purpose of this section largely has been to emphasize the diffi- 

 culty involved in designating major divisions within the family Psych- 

 idae. At present no substitute scheme of classification can be 

 offered. The situation is similar to the problem of subordinal de- 

 limitation in the order Lepidoptera, where, owing to various degrees 

 of intermediacy, primary divisions are exceedingly difficult to define. 

 In regard to the Psychidae, this problem extends to the family level. 

 For the present the system that seems the best to follow is that 

 which recognizes the two general groups within the family, Micro- 

 Psychina and Macro-Psychina, with the recognition that various inter- 

 mediates occur. These divisions have not been given definite taxonomic 

 rank but can be used with convenience in discussing generalities. 



The following family description includes the most primitive 

 forms (Lypusinae) although the relationships of these are somewhat 

 in doubt. Seitz {in Strand, 1912) suggested a polyphyletic origin for 

 the Psychidae but did not elaborate on the subject. Possibly the 



