1885. J ]^7 



KE VISION OF THE BRITISH SPECIES OF FIIYCITIDJ^ AND 

 GALLEEIJDzE. 



BY E. L. RAGONOT, 



President of the Entomological Societal/ of France. 



AVliilst preparing the continuation of my " Notes on the larvae of 

 British Mio^o-Lepidoptera,'' I was struck with the great differences 

 which exist in the arrangement of the Fhycitidce, as given in Mr. 

 Stainton's '' Manual of British Butterflies and Moths," and that 

 usually adopted on the continent. I had some thoughts of giving a 

 list of the British species arranged according to Dr. Wocke's catalogue, 

 which is founded on the works of Zeller and von Heinemaun, but when 

 I began to study the subject, I noticed that numbers of species were 

 placed in genera irrespective of their structure ; such a classification 

 could not stand. I postponed, therefore, my notes on the larvae, and 

 have since studied nearly exclusively the Phycitidcje and GalleridcB of 

 the whol6 world, thanks to the kind help of the late Prof, Zeller, Lord 

 "Walsingham, Dr. Staudinger, and many other friends, so that I have 

 had an opportunity of examining nearly all the known species, and a 

 great number of unpublished ones, with the object of writing a mono- 

 graph of these insects. 



The classification of the British species of Phycitidcd and Qalleridcd 

 in the " Manual " was based on those of Zeller and Guenee, but at 

 that time the neuration of the wings was but little studied, the form 

 of the antennae and the palpi being the only characters taken into 

 consideration. Yon Heinemaun attended to the neuration, and his 

 classification is a great improvement on the others, but in his work 

 there are numerous blemishes, some of which are quite unaccountable. 



The study of the Fhycitidcd remains very difficult, because only 

 the male possesses the distinguishing characters in the antennae and 

 the palpi, so that the female might frequently be placed in different 

 genera ; hence, if the neuration be not carefully verified mistakes will 

 arise, and species be placed by authors in wrong positions. 



As my monograph of these insects is in preparation, I do not 

 intend here to propose a classification of the British species as regards 

 the sequence of the genera. I wish simply to discuss the names 

 actually used, with the view of fixing the proper appellations both of 

 the species and genera. 



The early writers mixed the Fhycitidce and Galleridce among the 

 Tinece, these, in the Vienna catalogue, being divided into TinecB 

 Directipalpes and TinecB Recur vipcdjjes, forming thus a very unnatural 

 classification. 



