28 The entomologist's record. 



LiDEs, and then might have placed the Hepiai,ides above these. 

 This ilhistrates the absurdity of treating a single character in a 

 mechanical or Linna^an manner, and serves also to show the import- 

 ance of handling your one structural character in a proper way. 

 It serves also to show, as might be shown from half-a-dozen other 

 characters, that llepialus belongs to the Neo- and not to the Pal.eo- 

 Lepidoi'tera, and that a wide gap exists between llrpialus and 

 MicroiiU'rijx, a gap vertically, as well as laterally. Different forms 

 of the lowest Neo-Lepidoptera have retained, in different degrees, 

 different characters of the Pal.eo-Lepidoptera. The Hepialides 

 happen to have retained especially certain wing characters, but they 

 have diverged as regards maxillary palpi and some other imaginal 

 characters, such as ocelli and tibial spurs, both characters which are 

 up to this point in a very unfixed state ; they have also largely 

 diverged as regards larval and pupal characters. A larva with well- 

 developed prolegs, and a pupa with so many parts well fixed, cannot 

 belong to the Paljco-Lepidoptera. It would be quite as correct to 

 place Hctt'nii/cncidac*'-'' in the Micropterygides (Paheo-Lepidoptera) 

 because all (1 — 7) the abdominal segments of the pupa are free, as to 

 place Hcpialus there because it retains the jugum and additional veins 

 to the hind- wing." 



The error into which Meyrick has fallen, and which Dr. Chapman 

 has pointed out, is one into which any superficial worker can easily 

 fall. We were astonished, however, to read in Xatiire (March 26th, 

 1896), in a review of our little book on Jh-itish MatJifi, the folloAving (by 

 Mr. W. H. F. Blandford) : — " Hcpialidai', MicrojiU'ri/f/idac and Erim-r- 

 pltaluiae are separated from each other by numerous families, 

 although the position, remote from all other Lepidoptera, that has 

 been assigned to the three, is one of the most important and widely- 

 accepted of recent changes." This is true in a measure. The 

 Eriocephalides and Micropterygides are remote from all other 

 Lepidoptera, up to a certain limited point. The latter, how^ever, 

 probably forms the base from which the Adelid, Tineid and other families 

 which have largely preserved the maxillary palpi arose, and, there- 

 fore, these families must of necessity be brought into close connec- 

 tion with and cluster around their stirps. 



On the other hand, the Hepialides probably represent the stirps from 

 which the Zeuzerids and Cossids arose (maybe even the Zyga'uids are 

 high along this line of development). The cell in the fore-wing of 

 Zeuzera is directly traceable from that of Ucinaln^, and that of ( V^.s.sh.s 

 is also near. Other characters, particularly larval and pupal, also 

 suggest affinities, and hence, in any system of classification, the families 

 represented by these must be brought into close connection with 

 Hepialides. Of this Speyer says, in his interesting paper (^Stctt. Knt. Xeit., 

 1870), that the neuration of Ilcpialidac and (Jossidac is very similar, 

 and that they resemble the Trichoptera no less than the Microjitfn/i/idac, 

 though the ilcpialidac exhibit other close analogies to the Trichoptera. 

 He adds that the middle cell of the wing in the Phr>i(jancidae is not 

 fundamentally different from that of the Ilcpialidac, C'os.sidac and 

 Microptoijfjidae. He further associates the Xi/i/acnidac with the 

 (Jossidac, ( 'ochlinpodidae, Hctcrom/nidae, Psycliidae and Hcpialidac, and 

 remarks that all these families are isolated among the Macros 



• Includes the two British species Limacodes asella and Heterogenea testudo. 



