2 Mr. E. Meyrick on the 



Omitting the characters which are shared by the 

 Pterophorida; with the rest of the Pyralidina, the following 

 is a definition of the family : — 



PTEEOPHORID^. 



No ocelli. No maxillary paljii. Abdominal uncus in male well- 

 developed. Fore wings with vein 7 separate or absent. Hind 

 wings with vein 6 separate from 7, 8 free but closely approximated 

 to 7 on cell, lower median not pectinated. Wings usually fissured 

 (exce'ptAgdistis). 



So far as my investigations go, these characters hold 

 universally, with the exception of the last (which is the 

 least important), and are sufficient to separate the 

 Pterophoridce from each of the other families of Pyrali- 

 dina. Lord Walsingham, however, describes the genus 

 Cenoloha (with which I am not acquainted) as possessing 

 "drooping maxillary palpi," though he lays no stress on 

 this exception. Considering the remarkable character 

 of the structure attributed to this genus, which was 

 founded on a single much-damaged specimen, I think 

 that, without expressing any doubt of Lord Walsingham's 

 accuracy, it will be wise to avoid basing any definite 

 conclusions upon its alleged abnormal peculiarities, until 

 they are confirmed from further specimens ; but some 

 remarks on this genus will be found later. 



Now compare with the above definition the characters 

 of Scoptonoma, classed by Zeller as an eccentric Ptero- 

 phorid. I possess a type of Scoptonoma Peterseni, 

 kindly communicated by Lord Walsingham ; it has con- 

 spicuous ocelli, well-developed maxillar}^ palpi, no appa- 

 rent uncus, and in the hind wings vein 7 rising out of 6 

 and anastomosing with 8, with all the wings entire. It 

 therefore disagrees with the Pterophoridce in almost every 

 point, and cannot possibly have any direct connection 

 with them ; whilst on the other hand it agrees in all 

 essential characters with the Botydidcc, and should un- 

 doubtedly be referred to that family ; of the genera with 

 which I am acquainted in nature it a])proaches nearest 

 to lihimphalea. 



Certain authorities have also referred to the Ptcro- 

 phoridcB the genus Sclireckensteinia (Chrysocoris), a 

 proceeding which appears to me still more unwarranted. 

 In this case the structure of the genus should be com- 

 pared not so much with the special family characters 



