54 Mr. E. Mej'ricli o)i tlie classification of 



closely that it may be assumed to have been derived 

 from an early form of that family. It does not appear 

 that there is any direct affinity with the Noctuina, as is 

 commonly supposed. The reduction in the number of 

 abdominal pro-legs in the larva of some Noctuina is the 

 only ostensible ground for such a supposition, and is of 

 little value, as there is no reason why such reduction 

 should not have occurred quite independently. In other 

 essential characters there is no approximation between 

 the two groups ; particular stress is to be laid on the 

 difference in origin of vein 5 of the fore wings. 



The definition of the group has been framed above so 

 as to exclude the StropJiicliadce {Microniadce) , which I 

 formerly included in it ; I have recognised that the 

 genera placed in that family {Strophidia, Stesichora, &c.) 

 are in essential characters identical with the group of 

 genera called by Guenee Uranides, as well as with 

 Erosia, Syngria, Molybdophora, &c., and also with 

 Asthenia and its allies ; the whole forming a single 

 natural family (scarcely represented in the European 

 region, but sufficiently numerous within the tropics), 

 which has marked affinity with the Geometrinu, but can- 

 not be advantageously included with them. For this 

 family I think the term Uraniadce should probably be 

 retained. The larvse have usually the full number of 

 ten pro-legs, though one or two pairs are said to be 

 rudimentary in some instances. 



In the Geometrina the larvae almost always have the 

 pro-legs reduced to four only. In a few cases there are 

 six well-developed pro-legs, and rudiments of the other 

 two pairs are occasionally jjresent. Too much stress 

 should not be laid on this character ; for, although the 

 deficiency of pro-legs very early became a fixed attribute 

 of the group, and it is practically impossible for them to 

 reappear in any of the more highly developed genera, 

 yet in the more ancestral forms it is by no means un- 

 likely that, when the larva are fully known, some may 

 be found wdiich retain the full primitive number. 



The presence of the ocelli in a few species does not 

 appear to have any generic value in this group. The 

 prominence of the forehead also seems to be of little 

 practical importance. The maxillary pali)i are invariably 

 obsolete. The labial palpi present hardly any structural 

 variation, except in relative size, and in the greater or 



