REVISION OF MOTHS OF PRODOXINAE 13 



refers to the Hepialidae, Eriocranioidea, and Incurvarioidea as pos- 

 sible progenitors of the higher Lepidoptera. To the present author, 

 it seems more reasonable to suppose that such groups as the Hepia- 

 loidea and Incurvarioidea represent relatively speciahzed offshoots 

 that were in no way involved with the evolution of the higher (i.e., 

 nonaculeate) Lepidoptera. Morphologically these three super- 

 families demonstrate several primitive features, especially in the 

 imago, but their life histories have become specialized Avdthin their 

 particular groups. As far as is known, the larvae of the Microptery- 

 gidae are external feeders, and it is very Hkely that this habit has 

 continued into the higher moths and butterflies without passing 

 through any boring stage. Certainly mthin many families of non- 

 aculeate Lepidoptera, stem and seed boring has evolved as a speciah- 

 zation from externally feeding, ancestral types. It is possible that 

 stem boring in the Incurvariidae was derived, as generally suggested 

 for the Lepidoptera by Hering (1951), from a leaf mining habit, 

 which is so prevalent in Eriocraniidae and in the early instars of 

 many Incurvariinae. 



In diagram 1 on page 14, I have summarized the general relation- 

 ships of the five genera now recognized in the Prodoxinae. As a 

 possible progenitor for the Prodoxinae, I have envisioned (diagram, 

 1 , A) a group which possessed a fruit boring larva with well-developed 

 thoracic legs and some development of abdominal prolegs. The 

 adults possibly may have been poUen feeders similar to the Micro- 

 pterygidae, although their mouthparts may have become too specialized 

 for such function at this stage of evolution. My decision that 

 Tegeticula most nearly represents the ancestral type of the Prodoxinae 

 is not without question, and futiu-e findings may modify this decision 

 somewhat. Present information, however, involving not only the 

 morphology of Tegeticula, but also its life history, especially as it 

 relates to certain members of the genus Lampronia, suggests that 

 Tegeticula appeared somewhat earlier in history than did Prodoxus. 



The larval history of Lampronia capitella Clerck is interesting in 

 that it seems to recapitulate the fundamental steps in the evolution of 

 the prodoxine larva. The eggs of L. capitella are inserted into the 

 young fruits of Ribes diu-ing the spring. Upon hatching, the larva 

 feeds for a certain period on the seeds. Then, in June or July, it 

 burrows out of the fruit and spins a case in which it overwinters. 

 Larval feeding is renewed the following spring, but now the half 

 grown larva bores into the buds and also tunnels the young shoots. 

 By April or early May, the larva completes its growth and pupates in 

 the shoot. Similar life histories also have been noted (Ford, 1949) 

 for L. rubiella Bjerk, L. quadripunctella Stephens, and L. pubicornis 

 Haworth. 



