BO 
Eriocephalidae in the suborder of the Jugatae. 1 did not succeed in 
obtaining members of the two last mentioned families. As I said 
before, FRrACKER was obliged to found his description of Hepialus 
instar - on a drawing by Dyar. The species which I was able to 
study, M. hecta L., differs in important respects from Dyar’s H. 
mustelinus. The prothorax especially, to which FRrAcKER ascribes 
extraordinary importance, is decorated in quite a different style. On 
the abdomen (fig. 8) I found the dorsal, suprastigmal (right above 
the stigma), superior and inferior subdorsal (both lying in one line 
parallel to the caudal border of the segment), the poststigmal, infra- 
stigmal, anterior and posterior basal, propedal and ventral-setae. On 
the prothorax moreover the dorsolateral and prostigmal, but not the 
poststigmal and inferior subdorsal seta. Thus the pattern agrees almost 
completely with type J. 
On a half-grown specimen of Hepialus-larva from the Dutch 
village Boskoop, probably belonging to Hepialus lupulinus, the space 
above the prothoracic stigma was occupied by one seta only, which 
evidently was the superior subdorsal one, but the first abdominal 
segment carried the dorsal, dorsolateral and suprastigmal setae, all 
in one line above the stigma, and furthermore the superior and 
inferior subdorsal, the poststigmal, two infrastigmals, the anterior and 
posterior basal, the propedal and the ventral. If one wanted to 
derive the new second infrastigmal from the primitive pattern, it 
would be preferable to consider the anterior of the two as the real 
prostigmal. But before being able to give a solution of this question, 
it would be necessary to investigate the first instar of this species. 
FRACKER's explanation to regard the common poststigmal in this 
case as a typical subprimary seta &, to call the posterior of the 
two substigmal setae x, the inferior of the three suprastigmal ones 
9 (which latter designation he uses in other cases for the inferior 
subdorsal) is in my opinion not in harmony with the facts. More- 
over the presence at the same time of an inferior subdorsalis in the 
usual place, is in opposition to FRACKER’s views. 
Quai, in this case as in the others calls the suprastigmal seta 
IIB. I cannot agree with this view, as I am of opinion that this 
index should be exclusively bestowed on the prostigmal seta, as 
vam, does in the ease of other larvae. 
In considering the case of the Hepialids it should never be for- 
gotten that however primitive a family may be, it nevertheiess may 
have suffered certain secondary changes. This argument is for in- 
stance supported by vaN BEMMELEN’s investigations of the colour- 
pattern on the Hepialid wings (1914, 1915, 1916) where he certainly 
3 
Proceedings Royai Acad. Amsterdam. Vol. XIX. 
