79 



It is undoubtedly true that great diversity is to be found in 

 the characters which they present ; for instance, in the presence 

 or absence of tongue, ocelli, and maxillary palpi, in the form of 

 the wings, and in the structure of the labial palpi and antennae. 

 Nevertheless it is surely far easier at first sight to separate any of 

 these genera from those of other families than it is to determine, 

 with readiness and certainty, the true position of a Bombycid 

 (which approaches the Noctuidse), a Noctuid (which approaches 

 the Pyralidae), or a Pyralid (which approaches the Phycidse). 



Whether by their small size, their long cilia, or their slender 

 and upturned palpi, by the leaf-mining habits of their larvae or 

 the neuration or ornamentation of their wings, there is in each 

 genus associated with the Linnaean name " Tinea " some peculi- 

 arity by which its members can without difificulty be recognized 

 as possessing what may, I think, be properly called a family re- 

 semblance. 



Without at present entering into an elaborate analysis of these 

 resemblances to test the question of how far they may or may 

 not be regarded as of "family" value, it will not be denied 

 that they are far more easily grasped than are those more uni- 

 form generic characters upon the strength of which the various 

 existing families have been founded. 



There is considerable divergence of opinion between different 

 authors as to the family position of several well-known genera ; 

 and, on the whole, it would be perhaps the safest course to adopt 

 the name " Tineidae " as a family definition coextensive with the 

 " Tineina " of Stainton and other authors, thereby securing a ter- 

 mination uniform with that of the Sphingidae, Bombycidae, Geo- 

 metridae, Noctuidae, etc., and to regard the present families as 

 subfamilies, adopting for them the proper termination of such di- 

 visions, as Tineina, Hyponomeutina, Adelina, Gelechina, and so 

 forth. 



It will scarcely be objected that any necessity for further 

 subdivision except into genera and species has yet arisen or is 

 ever likely to arise. 



FOOD PLANTS OF SAMIA COLUMBIA. 



From a paper read before the Natural History Society of Toronto, by W. BrodiE. 



This species is common in the Muskoka, Nipissing and Lake 

 Superior districts, and extends beyond the height of land towards 

 James's Bay. It no doubt feeds indiscriminately on our conifer- 

 ous trees as well as many deciduous trees having a northern range. 

 It is very rare in Southern Ontario : those found are probably the 



