INTRODUCTION, XX111 



and place them at the head of that division matters but very 

 little. The venation resembles that of the Notodontidce, the ova are 

 somewhat Geometrid, whilst the general appearance of the moths is 

 Noctuid. 



Almost everybody appears satisfied in allowing the sub-classes 

 BryopJiilidce and Bombycoidce to remain in the NOCTUJE, and I think there 

 can be no doubt that this is their true location. It has also occurred 

 to most writers to place these near or classify them with the Cyma- 

 tophoridce. This appears to have been done without satisfactory 

 reason, both in the case of the Bombycoidce and Bryophilidce, the latter 

 especially having other affinities, and being probably closely related to 

 some of the genera in Orthosidce, and Dr. Chapman has shown that 

 the Acronyctidce in the development of an extra nervure between the 

 median and first sub-median veins have some structural affinities in 

 this direction with the Orthosidce and the genus Xyllna. At the same 

 time, the Acronyctidce show certain distant affinities with the Liparidce 

 and since the Cymatophoridce show similar distant affinities with the 

 Notodontidce, the fact that both are in some way allied to the BOMBYCES 

 has probably led to two very distinct and different families being placed 

 next to each other. Mr. Butler seems to be the only writer who has 

 ever suggested the genus Acronycta as an unnatural group in itself and 

 that its members have no real affinity inter se, or proposed the location 

 of its members elsewhere than with the NOCTTLE. 



The Bryophilidce form a compact little group, certainly having no 

 very strong affinities with either the Cymatophoridce or Bomlycoidcr, 

 although usually classed with them, but the latter is less homogeneous, 

 since Staudinger has added Demas coryli, Moma orion and Diloba 

 cceruleocephala to this latter group. The early stages of the first and 

 last are against their inclusion, whilst those of orion are in favour of 

 its inclusion in the group, as it presents in its egg and larva many 

 common characters with the genus Acronycta (taken as a whole), and 

 there appears to be no doubt that D. coryli and D. cceruleocephala will 

 both have to be transferred elsewhere. And here, too, it is necessary 

 to refer to Mr. Butler's paper on the genus Acronycta in the ' Trans- 

 actions of the Entomological Society of London,' 1879, pp. 313-317. 

 This has been so repeatedly and adversely criticised that it would seem 

 unnecessary to refer again to it, but it deals with the subject under 

 consideration and is so sweeping in its erroneous conclusions that its 

 fallacies cannot be too often pointed out. Shortly, Mr. Butler casually 

 examined or looked at the blown larvse of some British members of 

 the genus Acronycta, and then in the same casual manner examined 

 the neuration of the imago, finally transferring A. (Viminia) rumicis 

 and A. (F.) auricoma to the Arctiidce, A. (Cuspidia) leporina and A. (C.) 

 aceris to the Liparidce, A. (C.) megacephala, psi, tridens and strigosa to 

 the Notodontidce, whilst A. (C.) alni and A. (Bisulcia) ligustri were left 

 among the NOCTUJE. Dr. Chapman in his work < The genus Acronycta 

 and its allies ' has proved that these are all united in one generally 

 well-defined whole, and capable of sub-division into three sections 

 which he calls Viminia, Cuspidia and Bisulcia respectively, basing such 

 divisions on the egg, larval and pupal peculiarities. 



Grote unites under the title Apatelini, the Bryophilidce, Gn. and 

 the Bombycoidce, Bdv., whilst he separates the genera Arsilonche, Led. 

 and Demas, Stphs. into a tribe called the Bombycoidi. Dr. Chapman's 



