- 458 — 



Hepialid moths the imaginai instars are in some respects secondarily 

 reduced, the structure of their larvae proves to be quite primary and 

 unaffected. In the families of Micropterygidae and Eriocraniidae the 

 reverse is observed. Nevertheless the incorporation of these three diffe- 

 rent families into "one series Hepialodea, Kusnezov 1910, though 

 temporary, must be retained, the rational subdivision of the group 

 being still impossible. 



My note has for sake some corrections in the interpretation of 

 chaetotaxy and arrangement of the tubercles of the Hepialid larvae; my 

 opinion is that some data on the subject by Dyar, Packard, Forbes, 

 and others are inexact. For example, the D y a r's division of the ar- 

 rangement of larval tubercles into two, Frenate- and Jugate-, opposite 

 types is untenable, because in the arrangement of the Hepialids his 

 first type can be easily deduced from the second. My own scheme of 

 larval tubercles, I propose in a paper, now under press (see p. 452 of 

 the Russian text), is on my opinion well applicable to the whole order. 

 The first larval instar, just hatched, of Hepialids differs in no respects 

 from any Frenate form. But precisely this first larval instar must be 

 regarded as primitive and even primordial. The arrangement of its 

 tubercles is as follows : subdorsal anterior and posterior quite norma!, 

 suprastigmatal seta double (though the supposai, the anterior one, small 

 and rudimentary, represents the „praedorsal" of D a m p f, or the „X" of 

 Forbes, is not excluded), post- and substigmatal normally situated, supra- 

 ventral absent, extrapodal setae three in number (four after first molt), intra - 

 podal single, praeventral absent. For the second and following instars as 

 well as for adult larva the appearance of the „postmedial" tubercle of 

 my terminology is characteristic and peculiar. Whether the additional 

 fourth extrapodal seta represents the missing supraventral, or not, is 

 still a question to be solved. Thus the only tubercle peculiar to 

 Hepialids is my postmedial (D y a r's „upper subprimary"), bid it is ab- 

 sent in the first instar. Very possible, therefore, this tubercle is of 

 secondary and adaptive nature. Further, the explanation of the ab- 

 sence of the supraventral tubercle may be ambiguous, because this ab- 

 sence could be interpreted as primary absence as well as secondary 

 reduction. D y a r's dichotomic tabulation of the Frenate and Jugate 

 larvae is not correct. 



No rational bases for a division of Hepialid and Frenate larvae 

 exist, except a rather nominal, that is, the presence of the postmedial 

 tubercle in the adult and other, except first, instars. Such a conclu- 

 sion corroborates quite well the statement enunciated by Dampf that 

 many larval structures of Lepidoptera, and their tropin especially, are 

 extremely conservative in their evolution. (For details see Russian text). 



Revue Russe d'Entom. XIV. U>14. № 4. 



