Acentropns. 129 



they gnaw their way out of their case. And though it is 

 quite true that further details are required to give a com- 

 plete "life-history of Acentropus,'" I have no hesitation 

 in saying that, deciding on the evidence now forthcoming, 

 the insect is a moth. 



There is one point to which I may here allude — the 

 presence or absence of ocelli in Acentropus. Curtis says 

 " ocelli two, placed behind the antennae," and his fig. P. 

 shows the ocellus plainly enough. " Ocelli two,'^ re- 

 echoes Stephens.* In Westwood's figure of the head 

 (Introd. ii. fig. 113, No. 12) there is an indication of 

 what I take to be an ocellus. And Kolenati says, ** two 

 ocelli behind and between the insertion of the antennae 

 on the top of the head,^^ and his fig. 4 shows them dis- 

 tinctly (Wien. Ent. Mon. 1858, pi. vii.). 



On the other hand. Brown found no ocelli ; Heinemann 

 gives "ohne Ocellen" as one of the characters of the 

 genus; and Nolcken and Speyer searched for them in 

 vain. 



I was unable to detect any ocelli in my own specimen. 

 But in the autumn of last year, M^Lachlan, for my 

 satisfaction, subjected several specimens to microscopic, 

 examination ; after denuding the head of its scaly clothing, 

 the result was that, on one specimen, he, Douglas, and I 

 saw something — a kind of metallic disc, to all appearance 

 — which may have been an ocellus. But it was not be- 

 hind the antennae, or between the antennae ; it was on 

 the outside of the antenna, in a depression or excavation 

 of the basal joint. I believe Douglas and M'Lachlan 

 were satisfied that it was an ocellus : for myself, I doubt. 



In the Lepidoptera, there are either two ocelli or none ; 

 in the Trichoptera, three or none. If, then, the positive 

 evidence in favour of the existence of two ocelli be 

 accepted, we have another reason for referring Acentropus 

 to the Lepidoptera, and not to the Ti-ichoptera. On the 

 other hand, if the weight of evidence be held to disprove 

 the existence of any ocelli, their absence affords no argu- 

 ment either way. 



* But there is strong intrinsic evidence that Stephens' description was 

 not drawn up from personal examination, but was copied from Curtis's. 

 A word is varied here and there, just sufficient to escape being a mere 

 transcript; but the phraseology produces (in my mind, at least) convic- 

 tion, that one description was taken from the other. 



