136 Dr. T. A. Chapman's notes on Pwpx, 



When we come to the larva, Pteropliorus again presents 

 very great variation from a nearly smooth larva to a very 

 hairy one, and some species possess hairs with expanded 

 tips essentially the same as those of Chrysocorys- ; but 

 then such hairs, moderately developed, are found in very 

 many families of Lepidoptera. The relations of the 

 several tubercles to each other vary a good deal in 

 Ptero-plwrus, and, as I read Mr. Dyar's descriptions, 

 there are one or two species with tubercles disposed as 

 in Chrysocorys, by one and two (trapezoidals) and four 

 and five (post ? and subspiracular) being almost united. 



When we come to the egg, PteropJwnis varies again 

 here within wide limits, but there is not even a remote 

 suggestion of the structure found in Chrysocorys. 



These differences, whilst placing Chrysocorys nearer 

 to Ptero'phorus than, say, Orneodes is, hardly admit of its 

 being in the same family. 



The peculiar cremaster of PteropJiorus (an anal and 

 a forward portion) is paralleled in Elachista, Yjjonymeuta, 

 etc., which belong to the same series as Orneodes, but, 

 though this may suggest that Pteroj)horus is after all, 

 in spite of the small head-pieces, derived from this series, 

 it will leave it as far from Orneodes as ever. Further, 

 for instance, than Coleophora is from Adela. The great 

 difficulty in placing Pteroj)horus anywhere near to 

 Orneodes (though still at a considerable distance) or even 

 to Chrysocorys, is the extremely reduced condition of the 

 dorsal head-plate, so that it seems impossible to derive 

 it from the Adelid series at all, even if one starts as low 

 down as Mlcropteryx to allow for the divergence. 



Though the true Pyrales preserve (largely) this head- 

 piece, its reduced size places a difficulty in deriving them 

 from Pyraloids, though there is obviously a long series 

 of forms through which the reduction might occur gradu- 

 ally. The same difficulty faces an attempt to place any 

 macros in this line, but these difficulties in the case of 

 the Pyrales and Macros would be shght compared to 

 attaching to the series so extreme a divergence so low 

 down, as would be the case with Pterophorus. 



Pterojjhorus might certainly fall under my definition 

 of a " micro " whose larva is " an exposed feeder,'' and 

 Dyar places it there along with Anthrocera and Limacodes, 

 and both in structure and habits the larva falls into 

 that division as readily as into any other; at any rate 



