—43— 



PvraUdcR. Lord Walsinghani, in describing the verv pecu'i.u" species 

 C(Jcnod(wiiis hockingi, says that Mr. F. Moore suggested to him that the 

 genus was allied to tlie European genus Ai^lossa and that he agrees with 

 him. So far every systemati^t deahng with AuslraHan and East Indian 

 material places the group in the neighborhood oi Aglossa, and generally 

 all agree that it is very closely akin to that genus. 



But on the cither hanti Prof. Z^'ller regarded Telralopha as a Phycitid. 

 Clemens placed Epipaschia among the Deltoids by mistake, but put the 

 other species he describes under the heading '' F/iyci/cs.' Mr. Grote 

 separates the species from the "/*/n'r/i'A<'/' but places ihem just before 

 that subfamily, while remarking the}- have certain affinities to the Gal- 

 leriidce. The>e all agree that the EpipaschiincE find their nearest allies in 

 PliYfilid.c. 



The determinations seem to have been made as the writers had or 

 had not possession of the American, especially the ii-veined species. 

 Without these species the affinities have seemed t(j be moj^tly with the 

 Pyi-alidincB. With these, it seems, the systematists could not remove the 

 the group from the Phycitidtr. 



We are not in possession of the Ea^t Indian or Australian species, 

 and so are unable to make any statements based upon personal exam- 

 ination of them. But with the descriptions of Mr. Me\rick and Lord 

 Walsingham, and having in our possession probably all the American 

 species, we have, we think, a solution of the svstematic difficulty. 



]\Ir. Me}rick, in a paper u[)on the Classification of Australian Pyra- 

 lidina, ( I'rans. Ent. Soc. Lond., Dec. 1885, p. 421), says, "I think the 

 Pycididce may be regarded as a development of the (/(///tv ?'/</<:?" ; and 

 again further on, "The /')7'c///c//('/c<? and p]pi[aschiad^c are referable to a 

 Common ancestor very little removed, and the same can be said of the 

 Scoparidce and Crambidtc : whilst the GalleriidcB come from somewhere 

 between these two presumptive ancestors." 



Personally, we fail to see any evidence of a possible development of 

 tlie P/iyciiidce fiom the Galleriidce. The peculiarities of the Phycitidce in 

 venation, wing shape, maxillary palpi, labial palpi and antennal struct- 

 ure have no indications in the Galleriidce ; but in all these we have 

 kindred, if not identical developments in the Epipaschiince. At the same 

 time there is in many res|)ects a likeness to the Pyralidince, so that we 

 would connect the Phycituhe with the Pyralidin.e through the Epipasch- 

 incv ; or perhaps the latter is the ancestral and now nearly obsolete stem, 

 from which in different directions the other two have arisen. The 

 species which the old world furnishes, show a marked relationship to 

 the higher Pyralids, but the American species show even more decided 

 leanings to the Phvcilidoe, so decided iiuleed that one is almost forced 



