1885 



v^'ith. those placed in oMer families widely apart, but obviously closely 

 allied to them in form and habits. 



PLICATE OTHER FAMILIEfS 



(with fold). ; (without fold). 



Catoptria cana, falvana, Scopoli- 

 ana, ccBcimaculana, expallidana. 



Phloiodes tetrar£uetrana, immund- 

 ana, crenana. 



i Fam. ToETEiciDiE. 



Lozotainiasorhiana,rosana,x>jlos- \ Tortrix dumetana, diversana, he- 



teana, Podana, rolorana, costana, &c. parana, ribeana, corvlana, cinnamome- 



ana, &c. 



Fara. Caepocap3ID^. 

 Grapholltha conterminana, aspi- 

 discana, iripoliana, amulana, candi- 

 dulana. 



Fam. AyCHYLOPEEID^. 

 Steganoptycha ncBvana^ geminana. 



Dichrorampha tanaceti, plumhag- Fam. Caepocapsid^. 



ana, &c. Endopisa saturnana,plumbana,k.Q. 



Indeed, a simple enumeration of the species and genera crowded 

 together in the family Flicatce, of Wilkinson (which would occupy too 

 much space here), would seem sufficient to condemn it. 



In the arrangement followed by Wocke, this incongruity is 

 cleverly avoided, since, while the presence, or absence, of the costal 

 fold is relied upon (I think, always) as a generic (or sub-generic) 

 character, the genera with, and without, folds are so skilfully alter- 

 nated that, to a great extent, the actual relationships betw^een the 

 species are fairly maintained. But here there has evidently been a 

 serious difficulty, in the presence of a large number of "folded" species 

 which could not well be distributed in the same manner without the 

 manufacture of a host of new genera. They have, therefore, been 

 massed together under the generic name of Fcedisca. Here are 

 Catoptria cana, fulvana, Scopoliana, expallidana, and cceci^naculana^ 

 along with Coccyx tcedella, LithograpJiia nisella, suhocellana (campo- 

 liliand), and Fenhleriana, Poedisca opTitJialmicana, Solandriana, setni- 

 fuscana, and sordidana, with the four little Phloeodes, the four larger 

 SpilonotcB, and the whole genus Halonota, lumped together in one 

 unwieldy genus. 



It must be borne in mind that this costal fold is solely an orna- 

 ment or appendage of the male sex. I am not aware of any case in 

 which a female moth shows any tendency towards assuming it. It 

 consists of a small flap of membrane, usually occupying the basal por- 

 tion of the costal or anterior margin of the fore-wings, from one-third 



