-Auttii-'t iSS.v] 



psrcuH. 



.-! 



Gelechia. and a host of other oenera. so 

 niini(.M<)us that time fails me to mention 

 them, possessing among tliemselvcs tiie 

 most varied structure and metamorphoses, 

 along-side of Anaphora, Tinea, Rxapatc 

 Oc/isci/Zmimcria, &c., as genera of equal 

 value in the same famih". the tiiicidae'. 



Lord W'alsingham i.loes indeed, in 

 Papilio. refer to certain sub-groups of 

 the family iliieidae, but still he e\'i(lent- 

 Iv considers them niin<.)r groups and 

 looks upon the tineidae as a homoge- 

 neous group or family in the same sense 

 with uoctiiidae or gcoinetridac. To 

 m\- view it (the tineidae of these au- 

 thors) is about as heterogeneous a group 

 of moths as that would be which shoidd 

 contain the liombycidae. nnctiiidacgeo- 

 inctridac. tortricidae and pvra/idae 

 thrown into one : the species or genera 

 cohijjrised in it ha\"e no unity of stiuc- 

 ture. habitj metamorphosis, life-history, 

 habitat, or ornamentation, and a family 

 which comprises the genera referred to 

 abo\e (and others ec[uallv heterogene- 

 ous) might just as consistently contain all 

 lepidoptera heterocera at once : it would 

 then scarceh be more mixed that it is 

 now. I don't like to dissent from such 

 able and distinguished entomologists as 

 Lord \\ alsingham and Mr. (jrote. but 

 truth is better even than gocid compaiu . 



I have stated elsewhere that I thought 

 Stephens" classification of the tineidae 

 thoronghh' vicious. This language is 

 too strong. I will sa\' rather that I 

 think his classification radically bad in 

 so much as it gives too much weight 

 to the piesence of both pairs of pal|ii. 

 and their size — it is too nuicb a palpal 

 classification — not consistenth' carried 

 out. an<l one which it seems to me im- 



possible to carry out consistently. Still 

 it was a step in the right tlirection. and 

 infinitely better than, the arrangement 

 \yhich places all of the genera know'u 

 to .Stephens anil many others in a single 

 famih'. The objection to .Stephens' 

 arrangement is that it does not recognise 

 families enough, and mv objection to 

 jNlr. Stainton"s classification is that.it 

 recognises perhaps too many. Mr. 

 .Stairiton's tinridac (restricted) seems 

 to be a good and natural family of ecjual 

 or nearly ecjual value with the noctiii- 

 dac. but his graci/aridac and litlio- 

 colletidae, together with /'/lyl/ocnistis, 

 instead of forming two families and 

 part of a third, form together a single, 

 well defined family. The structiu'e and 

 metamorphoses of the larvae and pupae 

 seem to me to separate these moths 

 from all of the known tineidae. antl to 

 unite them in a single natural group 

 liaving lamih characters more than 

 usualL well marked. \Miether the 

 structure of their lar\ ac and pupae are 

 the result of evolution from some low'er 

 form, or of degratlation from some 

 higher one. that evolution or degrada- 

 tion has evidently been along the same 

 lines in all of the genera included in 

 the group, and shows a near relation- 

 ship between them as well as a diflerent 

 development fnmi ainthing that is 

 known elsew here among lepidoptera : 

 for the course of development from the 

 egg to the imago is dilferent entirely 

 from that of all the other groups of 

 the ortler. and the eggs themselves are 

 of difierent sbaj^e. size and consistency 

 from those of all the otiier small moths 

 known to me. They form, therefore, 

 in m\' opinion, a family at least as flis- 



