NOTES ON THE WAVE MOTHS. ( 



were already a little " behind the times " even when he wrote; 

 for his German contemporaries, Speyer, Herrich-Schaeffer, and 

 Lederer, had for some years been investigating classification 

 upon more of an anatomical basis — leg-structure and neuration 

 in particular — and had pubhshed much which showed that the 

 genera in question belonged to three very distinct groups, and 

 this seems fully borne out by studies of the early stages. Asthena 

 belongs to the Larentiidae (commonly called "carpet moths") 

 rather than to the " waves," while Cahera has the essential 

 characteristics of the great family Boarmiidse, including true 

 Boarmia (the "oak beauties," &c.), theFidoniinse ("heath" moths, 

 &c.), and many others. These, therefore, lie quite outside the 

 range of the Acidalite, and I shall dismiss them from consideration. 



I have just said that Guenee — whose work has constantly to 

 be referred to because it is the basis of Doubleday's and South's 

 arrangements, so largely used by British workers — that Guenee 

 wrongly includes candidata, &c. (Astheninffi) in his family Acida- 

 liidffi, and a glance at South's List will show you that the elimi- 

 nation of these reduces the family by six — four species of 

 Asthena, Eupisteria ohliterata, and Venusia cambrica. But it so 

 happens that, by way of compensation, six species which 

 Guenee placed in a different family immediately before Acidaliidse, 

 namely, his Ephyridae, have certainly to be incorporated therein. 

 No one can have noticed the ova or the imaginal characters of 

 Zonosoma (Ephyra), without seeing how near they come to the 

 " Waves," and even the highly specialized, butterfly-like pupa 

 has clear affinities with the pupa of " Acidalia." Probably, 

 however, that compact little group can still stand as a subfamily, 

 Ephyrinae, leaving us to deal with the typical subfamily^ Acida- 

 liinae (Sterrhinse) or "Waves" proper. By an absurdly antiquated 

 arrangement, all of these which are represented in Britain, with 

 the single exceptions of the " blood-vein moth" (Timandra) and 

 — in some authors — the beautiful little muricata {Hyria), are still 

 allowed to stand as one genus (Acidalia), not only in our British 

 lists, but also in Staudinger and Eebel's recent ' Catalog' of the 

 Palsearctic Lepidoptera. There is no doubt still much work to 

 be done in investigating the closer affinities of one species with 

 another, but the fact that they represent at least three distinct 

 biological groups has been recognized by the best workers for 

 fully half a century, and the genera which Herrich-Schaeffer 

 formed from the anatomy of the imago are supported, so far as 

 research has yet proceeded, by marked larval distinctions, and I 

 believe by those of the egg also. Probably, however, even the 

 three genera will prove inadequate when the larvae have been 

 more thoroughly worked through. 



The only Enghsh text-booK which has yet shown us these 

 three main "genera" is Meyrick's 'Handbook of British Lepi- 

 doptera ' (London, 1895). He calls the genera in question Eois, 



