102 



Coll. Kall. no material. 



Family Noduidae. Whilst Packard (1895, p. 83) entirely sepa- 

 rated this family from the Bomhyces^ he says (1905, p. 41) 

 "that in the SYMBOMBYCINAE the noetuiform characters are 

 crowded back in the phylogeny of the group." 



Dyar (1899) describes some Hijdroeciae and proves the exis- 

 tence of a large «. prostigtnalis. 



Fracker (1915) devotes some pages (p. 111—118) to the owlet- 

 moths and describes the difficulties he met with. 



He divides the family into four groups, "they are, however, 

 purely for convenience and do not constitute a natural arrange- 

 ment." His groups are: 



/. Larvae with primary setae only. The pattern agrees with 

 that of Mamestra and Bepressaria (see below). 



To this not a single Aa'onycta species belongs, otherwise the 

 greater part of the genera. 



II. Larvae with well developed verrucae, arranged as in Arctiidae 

 but X (r. prostigmalis) is often small and on segment 7 it stands on a 

 lower level than on 6 and 8. To these belong the Acronyctinae in part. 



///. Larvae with verrucae which are obscured by the deve- 

 lopment of secondary setae. Acronycta in part. 



IV. Verrucae reduced to single setae, although proceeded by well 

 developed tufts in earlier stages ; f^ {=v. basalts) remains present 

 as verruca, which is very peculiar as a proof of the pseudo-primitive 

 character. Acronycta in part. 



Fracker (1915, PI. Ill and lY) also describes Feltia glandaria 

 instar / and full-fed. We find here the following peculiarities: 



a. instar / has no s. infrastigmalis (>) on the prothorax, though 

 we do find it on the full-grown form. 



b. instar / has no s. i^rostigmalis {s) on the abdomen, but gets 

 one in maturity. 



In the last case, supposing it really has been stated rightly, I 

 presume that Fracker's labeling is not correct. For then the 

 seta on the abdomen is either subprimary or secondary and on 

 the thorax he calls it a primary seta, whilst he s^ys on p. 21 



