309 



the unusually postorior position of tubercle I (fig. 7 1. o. p. 49). 

 ïho uniform position on the thoracic segments of tlie Frenatac 

 is laeking." In my opinion the arrangement of the setae might 

 eqiially well be conceived as follows : s. dorsalis absent, s. suprasUg- 

 malis or s. dorsolaf eralis on the oral side, .s. suhdorsalis stq). 

 and inf. on the caiidal side, .*^. poststigmalis and s. infrastigmcdis, 

 two s. basah's. 



Packard (1895, p. 62) does not mention the larvae of this 

 family but draws a few setae on the nympha. 



Fracker (1915, p. 24) only says that the setae have been 

 reduced so far by leaf-mining habits that conclusions cannot be 

 based upon them. 



Family III. Hepialidae. 



For this family which interested me especially in connection 

 with the investigations of J. F. van Bemmelen on the pattern 

 of the wings (1912—1916), I had material of two species at my 

 disposal. 



Dyar (1894, p. 197) described Hepialus lupuUnus^ full-grown 

 specimen and later on (1895, p. 66 sqq) instar I of Hepialus 

 mustelinus. 



Dyar especially emphasized the differences between the Juga- 

 tae and the Frenatae, and did not describe the prothorax. 



Packard (1895) described Hepialus mustelinus instar / and full- 

 grown larvae of H. humuli and H. hectm. These latter he 

 figured together with the pupa of Oncopora intricata on p. 72 

 and 73 of the first part of his work on the Bombyces. I wish 

 to draw special attention to these pictures, because Fracker 

 does not mention them. The prothorax of all three agrees much 

 more with my description than with that of Fracker, which has 

 been selected as the fundamental scheme of the pattern of all 

 caterpillars. H. hectus agrees best with it, but just this species 

 is considered by Packard to be a specialized one. 



QüAiL (1900, PI. VI, fig. 11, 12, 13, 14) gives a description 

 and a figure of the newly hatched larva of Porina cervinafa 



2Ü 



