ii6 



embraced in Lord Walsingham's paper, and what I shall now 

 write is simply the impressions left upon my mind by former 

 studies. 



I am perhaps too indifferent to nomenclature, and care noth- 

 ing about whether we write TiNElNA or TiNEID/E. The name 

 does not concern me so long as the thing named is understood, 

 and I shall not enter upon the question as to which of these two 

 names we shall use. But the question whether there is in nature 

 a separate and distinct group of Lepidoptera of higher than gen- 

 eric rank to which either name can be appropriately applied, is 

 one of more importance. Following the authors of the Nat. 

 Hist. Tin., Stainton, Zeller, Frey, Douglass and others (acknowl- 

 edged authorities as to the insects in question), I have usually 

 written Tineina. Lord Walsingham, with the majority of ento- 

 mologists, prefers to write TiNElD.E, a name which in the Nat. 

 Hist. Tin. is applied to a single family of the supposed group. 

 Uniformity is better than priority, and I think it will be more 

 easily achieved by following the authorities above named than 

 by adhering to the older name of TiNElD.E for all of the various 

 and heterogeneous families forming the supposed group — if there 

 is in nature such a group* Is there ? 



Lord Walsingham thinks there is. With great respect for the 

 authority of so distinguished an entomologist, I differ with him, 

 and whilst I have used the name Tineina in a loose and general 

 way for all small moths not clearly belonging to any of the higher 

 groups, I do not believe that there is any such distinct group as 

 Tineina (or TiNElD/E). The HETEROCERAare sufficiently distinct, 

 perhaps, from the Rhopalocera, though there are " connecting 

 links" even here; but, in my opinion, there is no line separating 

 the Tineina (I use the name through force of habit) from other 

 Heterocera ; and the belief that there is has hindered the study 

 of these small moths. Because of their obscurity, and under the 

 impression that they form a distinct group, a knowledge of which 

 was not necessary to a knowledge of the higher Heterocera, stu- 

 dents of the latter have generally neglected them. But in 

 my opinion they are no more distinct from the higher HETEROCERA 

 than these are from each other ; and the Tiueidcc (restricted), 

 GekxJiidcE, etc., take rank as families of HETEROCERA just as do the 

 Bombyctdce, NoctuidcB, Tortricidce, etc., and not as sub-families of a 

 family TiNEINA or TlNEID^. The line which separates the higher 

 TmeidcB, GelecJiidcE, etc., from the TortricidcB, Phycidw, etc. (some- 

 times very indistinct), is no more strongly marked than the lines 

 which separate these latter from each other. The name Tincidce 

 probably came to be employed at a time when comparatively little 

 was known about these small moths, and they perhaps appeared 

 sufficiently distinct from the larger forms to give rise to the im- 

 pression that they were, in fact, a distinct group ; and the use 

 ofa name for such supposed group has perpetuated the belief 



