ii8 



what family or group to locate the insect mentioned by me in the 

 foot note on page i6 of the paper in the Jour7ial of the Cincin- 

 nati Nat. Hist. Soc. Possibly it may be related to Euplocamus^ 

 and on account of its large size, and for other reasons, I have 

 always doubted whether Euplocamus ought to be included in the 

 Tmeina. Lepidopterists are not by any means all agreed as to 

 the upward limits of the Tineina. Species and genera which 

 some place in Tineina are by others placed in Tortricidce, Pyra- 

 lidce and other groups. Mr. Stainton and others place OrtJiotelia 

 and Phibalocera in Tineina. Stephens and others have placed 

 them in Tortricidce, from which " at first sight" I see no reason to 

 separate them. Other instances will doubtless occur to those 

 who are familiar with the Tineina, but I write on the spur of the 

 moment, after having read Lord Walsingham's paper, and from 

 recollection only when I am no longer familiar with the subject, 

 and without any special research. Brentkia, Clem., is the equiva- 

 lent of Limcetliis. With Dr. Clemens, I, on account of its size, 

 cilia and ornamentation, placed it in Tineina, where it has been 

 located by some other entomologists, though more commonly it is 

 placed in Pyralidm. Hyale coryliella, Cham., is probably Mcnestra 

 tortriciformella, Clem., and was placed by both Dr. Clemens and 

 myself in Tineina, where, I am now satisfied, it does not rightly 

 belong. 



Lord Walsingham continues: "Whether by their small size" 

 (which we have seen fails to characterize them), " their long cilia" 

 (which are wanting in many of the larger genera, and are not longer 

 than in many Tortricidce or Phycidcc), " their slender and upturned 

 palpi" (though multitudes of them have drooping palpi or no 

 palpi at all) "the leaf mining habits of the larvae" (though a ma- 

 jority of them are not leaf miners at all, while some larvae of Tor- 

 tricidce, etc., are at first), " the neuration of their wings" (differ- 

 ing widely among different genera as Nepticnla, Cuniostoma, Lith- 

 ocolletis, Gelechia, Tinea, etc., and in some of the higher 

 genera differing little or not at all from that of Tortricidce, Pyrali- 

 dce) "and ornamentation of their wings" (ranging from the bril- 

 liancy of LitJiocolletis and LitJiacioptcryx to the somber dull- 

 ness of many Tineidoi), " there is in each genus associated with 

 the Linnean name ' Tinea some peculiarity by which its mem- 

 bers can without difficulty be recognized as possessing what I 

 think may be properly called a family resemblance." It may be 

 so, but I fail to detect the family resemblance of a Phyllocnitis on 

 the one hand, and a Tinea or Euplocamus on the other, more easily 

 than I can that between Anophora and many Noctuidce, and when 

 we come to trace their life histories and compare their larvae, the 

 attempt fails more completely still. All are LepidopteraHetero- 

 CERA ; to that extent there is resemblance, but that is about all 

 that I find between numerous genera usually " associated with 

 the Linnean name Tinea;'' and I do not find as characterising the 



