1915.] 241 



On Pancalia leuwenhoekella. — The affinity of this insect has always been 

 puzzlino-, and I have hitely made a fresh examination of it in the li<^ht of 

 increased knowledge, with interestino- results on points of structure hitherto 

 overlooked. 



The frenulum of the $ consists (instead of the ordinarj'^ penicillate 

 arrang-enient from a point) of three fairly strong bristles, rising from distinct 

 adjacent points in a line, and spreading fanwise beneath the forewings, the 

 first alone entering the costal retinaculum ; so far as my experience goes this is 

 a iinique structure, not observed in any other Lepidoptera. Hut in the Helio- 

 dinidae (of which the British representatives are Stathmopoda, Heliodines, 

 Augasma, and Schreckensteinia) the $ frenulum shows unusual diversity, being 

 sometimes composed of two diverging bristles (as Euclemensia) , or two 

 apparently soldered together (Trichothyrsa), or one strong bristle as in <J 

 {Heliodines), or normal (Stathmopoda) ; this further diversity would therefore 

 not seem oiit of place there. The frenulum of the (? is of the normal type, 

 but has a minute accessory bristle preceding it at base, which would be very 

 readily overlooked. The tarsi (especially the posterior) are furnished along 

 their lower surface with rather niunerous spines, longer at apex of joints, also 

 an altogether exceptional, if not unique, structure in so small a species ; spiny 

 bristles at the apex of joints are not unusual, and in the Heliodinidae are 

 constant and characteristic, but not evenly set along the lower surface ; it 

 would seem, however, that they might be not unreasonably regarded as an 

 extension of the normal Heliodinid structure : in larger and heavier Lepidoptera 

 they are of course the rule. In the rest of the structure of the species there is 

 nothing discordant with the definition of the Heliodinidae, and I consider that 

 Pancalia may therefore jiTstly be referred to that family. The general dis- 

 position of authors has been to place it with the Oecophoridae, which would 

 indeed seem to be the only other alternative ; but apart from the two pecrdiar 

 characters detailed above (to which I know no approximation in the 240 genera 

 of Oecophoridae), it differs from that family in the complete obsolescence of the 

 maxillary palpi (in the Oecophoridae very short and appressed to the base of 

 the tongue). The ocelli are somewhat larger and more conspicuous than usual 

 (in Stain ton's " Insecta Britannica Tineina " inadvertently stated to be absent, 

 though his figure displays them). The terminal joint of the labial palpi is, by 

 a similar slip in my Handbook, given as shorter than the second ; it is really 

 longer, as correctly stated by Heinemann. The short, smooth metallic head 

 and type of markings are qviite as in Heliodines. 



In my Handbook I have expressed the view that there is probably only 

 one species in the genus ; I have now ascertained that this view is erroneous. 

 In leuwenhoekella the ciliations of the g antennae are minute and difficult of 

 observation, and I estimate them at i ; in latreillella (which I have taken at 

 Mentone in I'rance) they are obvious, fully .^, and towards the apex in con- 

 sequence of the tapering of the antennae become 1. The forewings in 

 latreillella are undoubtedly also relatively longer and narrower. These 

 differences are conclusive ; and I find the white band invariably present in true 

 leuwenhoekella on the front of the antenna, whilst in latreillella ^ it is entirely 



