74 



PSrCHE. 



[July— August 1SS3. 



tinct and well limited as the true titiei- 

 dae or even more so. The Jtepticulidac 

 seem to me to form another natural 

 family. The immense host comprised 

 in Mr. Stainton's fiimilies hyponomcii- 

 tidae, gelechidae, glyphipterygidae, 

 colcophoi-idae. form at least one other 

 familw if not more than one, though 

 I incline to include the last three, at all 

 events, in a single family. A large 

 number of genera of his family ela- 

 chistidac may probably be included in 

 the gelechidae^ but there will still re- 

 main many of the others which are 

 difficult of location, unless each of them 

 shall itself be held of family rather than 

 of generic value. Thus Tischcria 

 seems to me especiall}' to stand alone. 

 Mr. Stainton places it in elachistidae ; 

 Dr. Clemens thought it belonged in 

 lithocolletidae, an opinion in which I 

 also was at one time inclined to concur, 

 when looking onl}' to some of the char- 

 acters of the imago : but those of both 

 larva and imago separate it toto coelo 

 from lit/iocolletidae, and those of the 

 larva separate it from all other lepido- 

 ptera : its labrum and maxillae are as 

 much like those of some coleoptera. 

 Cemiostoma also is sui generis or rath- 

 er sui familiac. Mr. Grote rightlv at- 

 taches nuicii importance to the neura- 

 tion of the wings, but, judged by this 

 test, Cemiostoma seems to me to stand, 

 if not alone, at least in no clo.se rela- 

 tionship to an}- other genus. Our 

 American species, C. albella. even dif- 

 fers from the European C. laburnella, as 

 figured by Mr. Stainton in Insecta Brit- 

 annica, v. 3, in that a/6e//a has the med- 

 ian vein of the primaries furcate at the 

 base, as well as in other minor respects. 

 The pupae are in some respects singular. 



and in the larva the strnctine of the tro- 

 phi is as distinct and uuic|uc as it is in 

 Tischeria. Mr. Stainton places Cemio- 

 stoma in his familv Ivonctidae. along 

 with Bitcciilatrix (the affinities of 

 which are rather with Ncpticiila) and 

 PJiyllociiistis (which I think belongs 

 with Corisciitm a.\u] Lit/iocollctis). In 

 the same famih' lie ])laces Lvoiictia and 

 Opostega. the afhnities of which are 

 yet doubtful, the latter probably belong- 

 ing near PJiyllocnistis. It seems to me 

 that this familv {Ivonetidae) cannot 

 stand ; and there still remain, especially 

 among the lower genera of elachistidae. 

 many forms as to the proper location 

 of which I am not aljle to form an 

 opinion. But with what sort of con- 

 sistency and upon what scientific prin- 

 ciples all of these multitudes of such 

 diverse structure, metamorphosis, life- 

 history, habitat, form and ornamenta- 

 tion, can be thrown into a single group, 

 the equivalent of a single family of the 

 higiier heterocera, I cannot compre- 

 hend ; but it seems to me — with the 

 greatest deference for such authorities 

 as Lord VValsingham and Mr. Cirote — 

 that in all of the particulars just enu- 

 merated, the insects associated by them 

 under the common familv name tinei- 

 dac present famii\ characters in varietv 

 as great as or even greater than all 

 other heterocera combined. 



Like Mr. Grote I do not desire anv 

 contioversN on this subject, and have 

 written above all that I desire to say or 

 shall .say upon it. and here take my fare- 

 well of it, hoping that notiiiiig I have 

 written will be considered to be in the 

 least degree wanting in respect to either 

 of the distinguished gentlemen above- 

 named. 



