2 U.S. NATIONAL MUSEUM BULLETIN 2 89 



photographic work was performed by Mr. Jack Scott, staff photog- 

 rapher of the Smithsonian Institution. The photographs of the holo- 

 types of Carposina phycitana and Carposina cardinata are the courtesy 

 of the British Museum (Natural History) ; the photograph in figure 

 2 was acquired through the assistance of Mr. George Okumura. The 

 outline maps of the United States, North and South America are from 

 the Goode Base Map Series and are used with the permission of the 

 Department of Geography, University of Chicago (copyright by the 

 University of Chicago). 



The following list of abbreviations represent the deposition of 

 specimens as cited in this publication: 



ABK Collection of Alexander B. Klots, New York, New York. 



AEB Collection of Auburn E. Brower, Augusta, Maine. 



AFB Collection of Annette F. Braun, Cincinnati, Ohio. 



AMNH American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York. 



BM British Museum (Natural History), London, England. 



CAS California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California. 



CDA California Department of Agriculture, Sacramento, California. 



CMNH Chicago Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Hlinois. 



CNC Canadian National Collection, Ottawa, Canada. 



CPK Collection of Charles P. Kimball, West Barnstable, Massachusetts. 



CU Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 



JGF Collection of John G. Franclemont, Ithaca, New York. 



MOG Collection of Murray O. Glenn, Henry, Illinois. 



NSM Nova Scotia Museum, Halifax, Canada. 



UCB University of California, Berkely, California. 



USNM United States National Museum, Washington, D.C. 



VNM Vienna Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria. 



Review of Literature and Classification 



The family Carposinidae presents a rather interesting problem, 

 not too frequently encountered in the Lepidoptera, of a relatively 

 homogenous, easily defined group of insects which has become so weU 

 isolated from related groups through the extinction of annectant 

 forms that any attempt to assess family relationships for the group 

 now proves quite difficult. The problem in determining family affinities 

 for the Carposinidae was early noted by Meyrick (1922) and later 

 re-emphasized by Diakonoff (1954). 



Several major features serve to distinguish the Carposinidae from 

 related families and superfamilies. Among the more characteristic 

 are: the raised scale tufts on the forewings; the loss of one and often 

 two medial veins in the hindwings; the sexually dimorphic character 

 of the antennal cilia; the tendency toward strong sexual dimorphism 

 in the labial palpi; and the general morphology of the male and female 

 genitalia. In the case of the latter, the typically spinose aedeagus of 

 the male and the somewhat extended ovipositor of the female should 



