308 



Sub-ordei' I. Jug'atae. 



Family I. Erioceplialidae. 



In many respects this faniily is very primitive but witli respect 

 to the setae it is exceeding-ly specialized. I do not possess any 

 material for iiivestigations and ani therefore obliged to confine 

 myself to literature, especially to one artiele of Chapman's (1894). 

 It is a great pity that no more is known about these highly 

 interesting larvae, which possess the full set of functionising abdo- 

 minal legs (1 — 8) and give rise to imagines, wliich, as Walter 

 foiind in 1885 for Micropteryx {Eriocephala = Eriocirmia) caUheUa, 

 retain the mandibles as biting organs and the first pair of maxil- 

 laries fully developed. 



Dyar (1893 and 1894&) does not give any characteristics. 



Chapman (1894) gives a very interesting description, with figures 

 of the larva of Micropteryx calthella E., which has been checked 

 and copied by Packard (1895) and which also occnrs (with 

 figure) in the manual of Oudemans (1900). 



On the newly hatehed larva there are ten rows of globular 

 rough warts, each of them on a little stem. They are placed on 

 four elevated ridges, and become smaller and smooth when the 

 larva grows. 



Handlirsch (1908, p. 1254) says that there are several rows of 

 tubercles on the back. Like the other writers, he draws attention 

 to the abdominal legs at the segments 1^ — ^8. 



Fracker (1915) does not discuss this family. 



Family II. Micropterygldae. 



In the pupae of this family Chapman (1893) discovered the 

 gigantic mandibulae. Their larvae, on the other hand, are more 

 secondarily modified, in so far as they lack the abdominal legs. 



For want of material I could not study their setal pattern. 



Dyar (1894è, p. 49) describes Micropteryx purpurella: "The 

 arrangement of the setae corresponds with that of Hepidlus, except 

 that the four setae on the base of the leg are absent .... It has 

 a doublé dorsal sliield on every segment which may account ft)r 



