ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LEPIDOPTERA. 195 



them. For the second of the above reasons, however, we have hinted 

 that Chapman's divisions, Incomplet.e and Obtect^, will ultimately 

 have to go, as they represent, as it were, horizontal slices of different 

 evolutionary stems, and not distinct and separate stems. 



In the TrauK. Ent. Sor. Lmid., 1895, p. 346, we wrote : — " When, 

 therefore, we find Chapman, Comstock, Dyar and Hampson agreeing 

 that the pupa, the jugum, the generalised condition of the setiferous 

 tubercles of the larva, and the low developmental stage of the 

 neuration, all unite in indicating that the true place of the Micro- 

 PTERYGiDES and Hepialidks is at the bottom of the Lepidoptera, the con- 

 clusion must be looked upon as one not likely to be iipset by the 

 study of any other set of specialised characters, but, on the contrary, 

 as one that will be ratlier strengthened thereby." The position of 

 these at the bottom of the Lepidoptera, i.e., as the more ancestral 

 Lepidoptera, has been strengthened by the study of the scales (Kel- 

 logg) and antennfe (Bodine) ; but we do not wish our readers to 

 assume that, by placing them at the bottom of the Lepidoptera, we 

 would unite them, as Comstock and Meyrick have done, into a section 

 equal in value to all other Lepidoptera. On the other hand, Ave 

 would keep them quite separate, as indicating the bases of two quite 

 different lines of descent. 



With regard to this matter, we have been charged with incon- 

 sistency, because, in our little book on BritiAli 2[nths (Routledge and 

 Sons) we have not maintained Comstock's main divisions of Frenat.tE 

 and .JuGAT.E, but " have separated the Hepialitlaf, Microptenjiiidae and 

 Kriocrplxdidac from each other by numerous families." Blandford 

 considers that " the position, remote from all other Lepidoptera, that 

 has been assigned to these three, is one of the most important and 

 widely accepted of recent changes " (Nature). Of course, everyone 

 who has studied them has recognised them as the most generalised of 

 the moths ; but no one has yet suggested that they have any direct 

 alliance with each other, except that they have certain characters in 

 common (generalised neuration, trichopterygoid scales, and jugum), 

 which they have retained from their original hypothetical Neuropterid 

 base. It is altogether asking too much that we should classify these 

 families together, simply because both represent ancestral forms, and 

 have retained a generalised form of neuration, and a jugum ; whilst 

 recent study makes it probable that they are in different lines of 

 descent. The direct affinities of the Micropterygids are with the 

 Trichoptera on the one hand, and the Adelids on the other. Sharp, 

 at the meeting of the Ent. Soc. of London, March 4th, 1896, ex- 

 hibited specimens of the pupje of Micropteryx (probably M. sojiipur- 

 purclla), and stated that he considered " the pupa to be that of a 

 Trichopterous insect," and suggested, that the Micropterygids " should 

 be treated as a group of Trichoptera, whose larvc'e are not aquatic in 

 their habits." He concluded that " if this course were not adopted, 

 he felt clear that Trichoptera could not be maintained distinct as 

 an Order from Lepidoptera." We are not prepared to admit this 

 co-ordinal relationship. It is certain that the true affinities of the 

 Hepialids are rather with the Cossids and Zeuzerids, and not with 

 the Micropterygids ; whilst the affinities of the Micropterygids and 

 the Hepialids are only such as betoken a common ancestral origin, 

 going back, probably, almost as far as Lepidoptera commenced to 

 exist as such. 



