117 



that it had a real existence. It is not my purpose, either now or 

 hereafter, to give the facts and reasons which lead me to the con- 

 clusion that there is no such group, as in all probability this is 

 my last contribution (such as it is) to entomological literature ; 

 but I wish to offer some remarks upon some of Lord Walsing- 

 ham's suggestions on this subject in the paper in the May num- 

 ber of Papilio. I would have expressed my meaning more 

 clearly and grammatically if I had written in the paper in the 

 Journal of the Cin. Nat. Hist. Soc, referred to by Lord 

 Walsingham, " TiNEINA is a name applied to a large group," 

 etc., instead of " Tineina is (sic) a large group," as quoted by his 

 lordship. It may be as suggested by him {in lit.) that " is" is an 

 error of the printer, but it is just as likely that it is the result of 

 my own haste and carelessness in writing. This much, enpassant, 

 as to the grammar ; my present object is to consider briefly some 

 of his lordship's reasons for believing that such a group as the sup- 

 posed " Tineid.e" higher than a genus has an actual recognizable 

 existence as separate and distinct from the higher HeterOCERA. 

 Lord Walsingham writes {loc. cit.): "What is a family?" 

 Regarding it in its accepted sense as " an assembly of genera," 

 each of which possesses in greater or less degree the character- 

 istic feature or features of one and all of them, we must ask our- 

 selves whether any one, or more than one, characteristic generic 

 feature pervades the whole group of genera which have of late 

 been massed together under the name " TiNEINA." For myself, I 

 must answer that I do not now remember any such feature which 

 is not equally characteristic of other HETEROCERA, unless indeed 

 it be the small size of most of them. And even if size be re- 

 garded as of "family" importance, there are many insects usually 

 included in TiNElNA which greatly exceed in size a great many 

 HeterOCERA of " higher" families. If we adopt size as the criterion 

 of a right to be placed inTlNElNA, then all species of Dr. Clemens'' 

 genus Anaphora will have to be excluded. My species Blastobasis 

 gigantella will be excluded, whilst all other species of the genus 

 will be included. These species of Aiiaphora and B. gigantella 

 equal or exceed in size the average size of species of TortrictdcSy 

 PyralidcB and PJiycidce, and so do many other " TiNEINA " which I 

 have not time now to specify, and they equal in size many Noc* 

 tuidce. I cannot agree with Lord Walsingham that " it is surely 

 easier at first sight to separate any of these i^TineidcB) genera 

 from those of other families than it is to determine with readi- 

 ness and certainty the true position of a Bombycid (which ap- 

 proaches the NoctuidcG), a Noctuid (which approaches the Pyrab^ 

 dee) ox a. Pyr a lid {which approaches the Phyeida)." Indeed, to 

 instance Anaphora again, it appears to me that at first sight I 

 should rather refer it to the Noctuidce than to the Tineina ; and 

 I confess myself, at first sight (for my examination of the insect 

 was brief and incomplete) I was utterly unable to determine in 



