l895-] ENTOMOLOGICAL NEWS. 39 



into the suborders Jugatae and Frenatae, I would divide the latter 

 into six superfamilies on the arrangement of the tubercles of the 

 larvae In response to a tendency for these tubercles to be ar- 

 ranged in a single transverse row, tubercles iv and v have become 

 consolidated into one in the first three superfamilies, and later 

 tubercles i and ii have been likewise united, or else tubercle ii 

 disappears. In the three highest families the tubercles have 

 tended to form two alternating rows. According to these char- 

 acters the superfamilies separate as follows : 



Tubercles iv and v approximate or consolidated. 



Tubercles i and ii remote Microlepidoptera. 



Tubercles i and ii consolidated Anthrocerina. 



Tubercles i and ii remote, ii disappearing at the first moult. Bombycina. 

 Tubercles iv and v remote. 



Tubercle iv behind the spiracle, v below it Noctuixa. 



Tubercle iv below, v in front of spiracle Sphingina. 



Tubercles iv and v in line, except in some Nymphalidae, where secon- 

 dary armor is developed Rhopalockra. 



The Microlepidoptera include the Psychidae, Cossidae, Py- 

 ralidae, Tortricidae, Sesiidae, Tineidae and Lacosomidae; the An- 

 throcerina the Pterophoridae, Anthroceridae, Pyromorphidae, 

 Megalopygidae and Eucleridae; the Bombycina the Citheroniidae, 

 Hemiieucidae,* Saturniidae* and Bombycidae; the Noctuina the 

 Notodontidae, Thyatiridae, Geometridae, Drepanidae, Agaristidae, 

 Noctuidae, Cymbidae, Lilhosiidae, Pericopidae, Arctiidae, Euchro- 

 miidae and Lymantriidae, and perhaps also the Thyridae, Diop- 

 tidap, Brephidae and Lasiocampidaef ; the Sphingina the Sphin- 

 gidae, and the Rhopalocera the families usually associated 

 under that term. 



Thus, from the larval characters which I use, the Pyralidae and 

 Pterophoridae are placed in two separate, but closely allied super- 

 families. I see no reason for giving the families the superfamily 

 ending as has been done recently. I regret that I have not seen 

 the larva of Orneodes, so I cannot throw any light on the posi- 

 tion of the family it represents. However, if Dr. Hulst had read 

 carefully Dr. Chapman's really good articles (to which Mr. Tutt 

 refers) I think he would appreciate better the force of the argu- 



*,Not in the sense used by Prof. Smith. My classification corresponds more nearly with 

 that of Grote's Check List 1882. 



t These I have not examined sufficiently. The Lasiocampidse will probably form 

 another superfamily. 



