July— Aiiuiist iSSj.l 



l'S]-( HE. 



71 



There is little need ot" comment upon 

 Fischer's classification of scales of 

 coleoptera into conchiforni scales 

 (Mubchelschiippen), metallic scales 

 (Metallilattscluippen ) . granulated scales 

 (Granulationsschuppen), piliferous and 

 shaggv scales ( Haar- nnd Zottenschup- 

 pen) and fil)rous scales ( I'aserschup- 

 pen). Levdig. as quoted above, 

 destroyed the value ot" the division of 

 granulated scales, and I have found that 

 the division of fibrous scales owes its 

 origin to what Fischer would call "gran- 

 ulations," that is to air-spaces, onlv 

 that, in this case the granidations are 

 arranged longitudinallv in stiipes. I 

 can present no new classification t)t 

 scales, if such a classification is possible_ 

 without stud\ ing more forms. 



Before concluding this paper I will 

 adtl a note on the mode which I have 

 emplo\ed to gather scales, and some 

 other minute objects of like nature, 

 together upon one place on a microscope 



slitle. The process consists in putting 

 the scales in a drop of some quickly 

 evaporating substance — chloroform is 

 best for most purposes — on the slides. 

 The scales will form in a kind ot 

 whirlpool, nearly all the scales finally 

 settling down, as the liquid evaporates, 

 in one place on the slide. Rapping the 

 slide gentlv sometimes aids in the collect- 

 ing together of the scales, and the tip 

 of the scalpel used to scrape the scales 

 from the insect can be washed in the 

 drop of chloriform, thus saving every 

 scale when they are from a rare speci- 

 men from which one desires to remove 

 onh' a few scales. 15v inclining the 

 slide gentlv, the mass of Boating scales 

 can be made to settle on the exact 

 centre of the glass. One part of 

 Canada balsam added to several hun- 

 dred parts of chloroform will cause the 

 scales to stick firmlv to the slide. 



( To be continued by a notice of some litera- 

 ture seen si>icc preparing the original paper.^ 



THE CLA.'^SIFICATION OF THE TIXEIDAE 



BV VACTOR T()1JSK^■ ClI 



Wv attention has just been calleil to 

 an article by Mr. Grote in Papilio, 

 vol. 3. On page 43 he writes "I do 

 not wish to enter into an argument as 

 to the best classification of the tineidae. 

 but disagreeing with Mr. Chambers. I do 

 not think anv one would take Anaphora 

 for anv thing but a tineid : "' and on page 

 3S he writes. ".So far as I have studied 

 them we appear to be able to classif\' our 

 moths under sphingidae — tineidae" , 

 &c., itc. naming the families usuallv 

 adopted. I refer to this subject because 

 the first of these above-quoted passages 



AMBERS. rO\-lN-GTON, KV. 



convex s the impression that I ha\ e stated 

 that Anaphora ought to be placed else- 

 where than \\\tincidae.-A\\A because the 

 second c|uotation gi\es me an opportim- 

 ity to write more fully than I have 

 elsewhere done as to the classification 

 ii'i \\\(t iincidac \ an opportunitN' that I 

 desire because two such distinguished 

 entomologists as Lord Walsingham 

 and Mr. (irote have, very courteously 

 of coiu'se, taken me to task for the 

 expression of <ipinions as to the 

 classification f)f the tineidae which 

 are bv them considered more or less 



