—43— 



P\'raIid(X. Lord Walsingham, in describinsj^ the very pecu'iar species 

 Ccenodomus /wckingi, says that Mr. F. Moore suggested to him that the 

 genus was allied to the European genus Aglossa and that he agrees with 

 him. So far every systematist deahng with AustraHan 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 other hand Prof. Zeller regarded Tetralopha as a Phycitid. 

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

 other species he describes under the heading '' Phyciles.' Mr. Grote 

 separates the species from the '' Phvcidce,'' but places them just before 

 that subfamily, while remaiking they have certain affinities to the Gal- 

 leriidce. l"he>e all agree that the EpipaschiincB find their nearest allies in 

 PhycittdLC. 



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

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

 Without these species the affinities have seemed to be mostly with the 

 PyralidincE. With these, it seems, the systemalists could not remove the 

 the group from the PIivciiidi.r. 



We are not in possession of the East 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 tlunk, a solution of the systematic difficulty. 



Mr. Meyrick, in a paper upon 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 Cc/Z/tv/Zt/t^"" ; and 

 again further on, "■1l\\q. Pyralididce -awiX EpipaschiadiF are referable to a 

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

 ScoparidcB and Crambida- : w hilst the GaUeriidce ccmie from somewhere 

 between these two presumptive ancestor.s. " 



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

 the Phycilidce from the Galleriidce. The peculiarities of the Phycitidoc in 

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

 ure have no indications in the Galleriidce-, but in all these we have 

 kiiulred, if not identical developments in the Epipascliiincc. At the same 

 time there is in many respects a likeness to the Pyralidince, so that we 

 would connect the Phycitidce with the Pyralidiiue through tlie Epipasch- 

 itue ; or perhaps the latter is the ancestr.d and now nearly obsolete stem, 

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

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

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

 leanings to the Phycitidce, so decided indeed that f)ne is almost forced 



