13] LEPIDOPTEROUS LARVAE — FRACKER 13 



acters", he made the former work on the Prenatae apply to the setal 

 pattern of the Jugatae. The purpose of this paper was, however, more 

 to point out the differences between the larvae of the two suborders than 

 to show their similarity. 



0. Hofmann (1898) described the first and later instars of certain 

 pterophorid larvae, reaching the conclusion that the thoracic and 

 abdominal setae are homologous but that additional ones are present on 

 the prothorax. The suggestions he makes and the reasons given are 

 excellent. Dyar's nomenclature is used, with the result that he does 

 not make his own conceptions as clear as if he had changed it to meet 

 his own ideas of homology. 



In response to criticism by Hofmann, Dyar (1901) finally did ex- 

 press an opinion on the serial homology of the setae so far as the last 

 two thoracic and first eight abdominal segments are concerned. The 

 table he gives, which is as follows, merely indicates his agreement with 

 the views of Hofmann. 



Numerals now applied Should 



be 

 called 

 i 

 ii 

 iii 

 iv 

 v a 

 v 



V b 



vi 



It will be seen that the conclusions indicated by the table agree in 

 most particulars with those reached on later pages of this paper except 

 in the relation of setae iv and v. Altho the point will be discussed later, 

 it should be mentioned here that the error arises from a failure to consider 

 the condition in Hepialus. The larvae of that genus show clearly that 

 the missing seta near the abdominal spiracle is not between iv and v 

 but above iv. Seta iv of the metathorax is therefore homotypic witli iv 

 of the abdomen, v with v of the abdomen, and vi of the abdomen is not 

 represented on the thorax. Other reasons for this view will be dis- 

 cussed later. 



Ambrose Quail (1904) discusses these particular setae, basing his 

 opinions on the condition in the first instar of certain Hepialidae and 

 Frenatae. He calls attention to the error mentioned above and shows 

 Dyar's mistake concerning the true meaning of iib. Instead of being 



