320 THE ENTOMOLOGIST. 



formation of the cell ; the cell cannot he said to exist in the 

 Palaeo-lepidoptera (Packard), but is a most definite feature in 

 the higher Neo-lepidoptera (Packard). Had our author paid due 

 attention to this, we think he would have agreed with Packard, 

 Dyar, and others in the position to be assigned to several of the 

 lower families, and would never have given us so unnatural a 

 group as his Psychina. By the way, we may say that the book 

 not being one to be read straight through, we may have missed 

 something, but, so far as we have noticed, our author absolutely 

 ignores Dyar's work on the larval tubercles. In Hepialus the 

 formation of the cell has already made definite progress, and so, 

 treated from a neuratimal standpoint alone, it is possible to place 

 Hepialus in the Neo-lepidoptera and separate it from the Micro- 

 pterygides. Amongst British forms we find the next stage in 

 Zeuzera, and our author, with his large acquaintance with exotic 

 forms, is no doubt able to supply some of the intermediate 

 positions ; and we pass on without any great hiatus to Gossus. 

 In several higher groups, and especially in many Tortrices, 

 certain records of the later stages of the process remain. A 

 similar evolution may be traced in the Tineid Stirps. Our 

 author, however, ignores all this, and pays no attention what- 

 ever to the neuration, except that outside the cell. 



Supposing the maxillary palpus had been taken as the 

 structure on which to base a classification, we might then have 

 started with the Palaeo-lepidoptera, progressed through certain 

 Tineina, reached the Pyrales, and then might have placed the 

 Hepiali above these. This illustrates the absurdity of treating a 

 single character in a mechanical or Linnean manner, and serves 

 to show the importance of handling your one structural character 

 in a proper way. It serves also to show, as might be shown from 

 half a dozen other characters, that Hepialus belongs to the Neo- 

 and not the Palaeo-lepidoptera, and that a wide gap exists 

 between Hepialus and Micropteryx, a gap vertically as well as 

 laterally. Different forms of the lowest Neo-lepidoptera have 

 retained, in different degrees, different characters of the Palaeo- 

 lepidoptera. Hepialus happens to have retained especially 

 certain wing characters, but they have diverged as regards 

 maxillary palpi and some other imaginal characters, such as 

 ocelli and tibial spurs, both characters which are up to this point 

 in a very unfixed state ; they have also largely diverged as 

 regards larval and pupal characters. A larva with well-developed 

 prolegs, and a pupa with so many parts well fixed, cannot belong 

 to the Palseo-lepidoptera. It would be quite as correct to place 

 Heterogeneidse in the Micropterygides (Palseo-lepidoptera) be- 

 cause all (1 — 7) the abdominal segments of the pupa are free, as 

 to place Hepialus there because it retains thejugum and addi- 

 tional veins to the hind wing. 



There seems to be a great probability that the Psychidse and 



