362 BRITISH LEPlDOPTEftA. 



descent was directly from the Eriocephalidae, as Chapman suggests, 

 seems to us a matter of doubt, for the larvae of the Cochliopodids 

 present some notable differences from that of Eriocei>kala, whose 

 so-called ' eight pairs of abdominal legs ' appear to be merely spine- 

 bearing tubercles If we compare the head of the pupa of 



Param and those of other genera, especially LimacoJos (Cochlidion) 

 and Heterof/enea, with that of Tinea, there will be observed a close 

 resemblance, especially in the maxillae, maxillary palpi, and labial 

 palpi, indicating the more or less direct descent of the family from some 

 Tineid form, perhaps an extinct ally of Nepticuli, since Chapman 

 speaks of a resemblance that is almost identity in the pupa of Xejiticuld 

 as compared with that of Limacode^. 1 ' The probable alliance between 

 the Micropterygids and Cochlidids (Eucleids) has been previously men- 

 tioned (ante, pp. 135-136), as also that between the latter and the 

 Nepticulids (ante, p. 180). 



The Cochlidid (Eucleid) egg is a flat, oval, colourless speck, very 

 similar to those of the Nepticulids and Megalopygids. It is exceedingly 

 thin, transparent, membranous, with a cell-structure forming a lozenge- 

 shaped network, covering the surface of the shell (easily seen if 

 examined in suitable light, and with moderate magnifying power). It 

 is quite naked, and not covered with silky hairs, as are the eggs of 

 Lagoa, one of the Megalopygids. It is, indeed, just what one might 

 have expected the generalised flat egg of this stirps to be. Chapman 

 says that somewhat similar eggs occur amongst certain Tineids and 

 Pyrales. 



The larva is without abdominal prolegs, those of our British species 

 being provided with suckers to the first eight abdominal segments, the 

 first and last, however, poorly developed. Their appearance, however, 

 suggests that they are homologous with prolegs, and with the special 

 structures occupying the position of the latter in Micropterygids 

 (ante, p. 141). The Cochlidid (Eucleid) larva is, in a great degree, a 

 generalised larva, with much plasticity (variability), and a tendency to 

 specialisation in its remarkable armatures. The larvae of our British 

 species show their specialisation in their shape, mode of progression, 

 and colour, and not in the development of prominent spines or hairy 

 warts, as is the case in the larvae of certain exotic species. This 

 specialisation is most probably for protective purposes. The larvee 

 appear to be protected : (1) By the way the body is appressed to the 

 leaf, its expanded edges appearing to merge, owing to their closeness 

 and similar colour, into the surface of the leaf. (2) By their peculiar 

 red and brown markings on a green ground, which, added to their 

 humped shape, make them closely resemble the galls so frequently formed 

 on the surfaces of leaves. (3) By their almost imperceptible gliding 

 motion, which is less likely to attract attention than would the move- 

 ments of a more rapidly travelling larva. The specialisation of the 

 British species is especially notable, then, from the fact that the larvaa 

 have lost their armature in the adult stage, a specialisation that is 

 really more extreme, in a sense, than that of the possessors of the most 

 remarkable, abundant, and bizarre armature. 



Our European species, however, give us no idea of the marvellous 

 modification to which the larvae are subjected in other parts of the 

 world. Roughly, those of the exotic species fall into two main 

 divisions : (1) Bearing tubercles and spines. (2) Smooth and un- 



