(oa5ni 
X. Some notes on the Micro-Lepidoptera whose larve are 
external feeders, and chiefly on the early stages of 
Eriocephala_ calthella (Zygenidx, Limacodide, 
Hriocephalide). By Tomas ALGEeRNon CHAPMAN, 
M.D., F.E.S, 
[Read Feb. 7th, 1894.] 
Puates VI. & VIL. 
I present these notes now, as there seems little pro- 
bability that I shall, at an early date, be able to carry 
further my observations on WHriocephala, and it is 
desirable to put them, so far as they go, at the disposal 
of anyone who may wish to continue them; and I pre- 
sent along with them sundry notes that tend to confirm 
the view, that the Zygxenidxe, Limacodidx, and Hrioce- 
phalide form a group which, though the last member is 
as low as the lowest 7imex, and the first as high as Butter- 
flies or Noctuze, has nevertheless been evolved on its own 
lines, from a common source, as a separate branch of 
Heterocera. 
The broad facts of the pupal structure, and the slug- 
like form and habit of external feeding of the larva, pro- 
bably suffice to support this view; but further points of 
alliance are no doubt most useful in confirmation. 
\ 
It becomes necessary, in the first place, to relate my 
observations on Hriocephala calthella, since it is largely 
to these observations that 1 owe the confidence I feel 
that this grouping of families is justified by fact. 
The genus Micropterya was divided by Stainton (“‘ A 
Monograph of the British Species of the Genus Micro- 
pteryx of Zeller,’ Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., new series, 
vol. i1., pp. 26-40, 1850-1) into two sections—A. Hrioce- 
phala, of Curtis, and B, Micropteryx, Hiibner. At that 
time the larvee were unknown, and the division was made 
by the neuration. Shortly after, the larvaof Micropteryx, 
Hiibner, was discovered, and very soon material was accu- 
mulated that would have justified what must now be 
done, viz., separating the Hriocephale from the Micro- 
pteryges, not only as a distinct genus but asa separate 
TRANS. ENT. Soc. LOND. 1894.—part it. (JUNE.) 
