1883. J 191 



of Monsieur Henri de Peyerimhoff having deprived us of the completion of his 

 extensive studies, of which the preliminary results, published in the Annales de la 

 Societe Entomologique de France, in 1876, had encouraged the hope that a systematic 

 arrangement of the Tortricida, which should exhibit some improvement upon the 

 valuable, but not wholly satisfactory, lines laid down by Heinemann (Schmetterlinge 

 Deutschlands und der Schweiz), was not at that time remotely distant. All Lepi- 

 dopterists will wish Professor Fernald success in this undertaking. In the catalogue 

 now under consideration, he divides the Tortricida into three sub-families : Tor- 

 tricincB, Conchylince, and GrapholithincB, in which he accords to Heinemann's sub- 

 genera the rank of genera. The first of these sub-families containing Teras, Cacoecia, 

 LoxotcBfiia, Ptycholoma, Pandemis, Lophoderus, Sciaphila, Tortrix, Amorhia (into 

 which the genus Hendecastema, Wlsm., is properly sunk), Synnoma, (Enectra, 

 Cenopis, Dichelia, Amphisa, Capua, and Platynota. The second consisting of the 

 two genera, Idiographis, Lederer, and Conchylis, Treitschke. These genera will 

 probably be admitted to form a well-defined sub-family, on account of the degree in 

 which their neuration difPers from that of other Tortricidee — the second vein of the 

 anterior-wings taking its rise on the outer third of the discoidal cell — whereas, in all 

 other genera at present characterized, it arises as far back, at least, as the middle 

 third. The remaining genera are grouped together in the sub-family Qrapholithina, 

 and these are, for the most part, the same which, in Heinemann's classification, are 

 regarded as sub-genera of Grapholitha. The proposal to erect sub-families seems 

 worthy of adoption, in preference to that of Heinemann's, as not open to the 

 objections raised by those who advocate a scrupulous adherence to the strictly bi- 

 nominal system of nomenclature. 



It is difficult to understand why the author has hesitated to adopt the practice 

 in general use of making the terminations of the generic and specific names invariably 

 agree with each other. His habit of employing a feminine termination for all the 

 specific names, without regard to the genders indicated by the terminations of the 

 generic names to which they are attached, is obviously incorrect and inadmissible, 

 even although it may be as he claims in his preface, " the course adopted in nearly 

 every list or catalogue of these insects which I have seen from Linneus down." 



On the other hand, he scrupulously corrects Stephens' spelling of his genus 

 Jjozotcenia to Loxotcenia, although Stephens' eri'or has been copied in Wocke's cata- 

 logue, and, almost without exception, in other works. He also adopts the correct 

 spelling, Conchylis, in lieu of Treitschke's Cochylis, which has been frequently re- 

 peated by later authors. 



I cannot entirely concur with Prof. Fernald in his extension of the genus 

 Proteopteryx, Wlsm. The type of this genus, P. emarginana, has certainly a slight 

 indication of a costal fold in the male sex, which should have been noticed in the 

 original description, but this is not closely appressed, nor is it wide and conspicuous 

 as in the genus Pcedisca. The indentation of the middle of the apical margin of 

 the anterior- wings is the chief character by which it may be distinguished. This in- 

 dentation occurs in a limited degree (not to the same extent as in the typical species) 

 in Semasial oregonana, Wlsm., and Pcedisca resumptana, Walk. (sp. .P), both of 

 which our author includes in Proteopteryx; but the former of these two species has 

 no costal fold, and the latter has the closely appressed wide costal fold of a Pcedisca. 

 Anchylopera costomaculana, Clem., also placed in the genus Proteopteryx by Prof. 



