Dr. Sharp cede Eriocrania to Trichoptera. The matter is more one 

 of words and arrangement than of fact. 



Micropteryx is more neuropterous than the Trichoptera are ; 

 whilst Trichoptera and Eriocrania are on about the same horizon. 

 Both have larvae without prolegs, both especially have pupse with 

 jaws for escaping from their cocoons or cases, with various other 

 structures similar in both groups. 



I incline myself to the belief that the primitive Trichopteron had 

 scales, and that when we find Trichoptera with scales they are not 

 new and separate acquirements, but directly inherited from a scaled 

 ancestor common to them and the Lepidoptera. 



As regards antennae, we may note in the Trichoptera that the mass 

 of species has got rid of scales on the antennae, as elsewhere, and 

 presents an antenna answering very closely to the primitive form 

 stipulated by Bodine and Jordan for Lepidoptera. There are also 

 forms mentioned by Bodine in which the antennae are almost 

 identical with those of Eriocrania ; one he specifies is Mystacides 

 nigra. There are also others more perhaps resembling adelid 

 antennae, such as in the genus (Ecetis. 



Bodine advances several grounds in antennal structure for ap- 

 proximating Eriocraniadae and Phryganeidse. 



All these points are of great interest in themselves, and of interest 

 to us just now as strongly increasing the presumption that we have 

 in Eriocrania a really primitive lepidopterous antenna, one in which 

 there is a uniform distribution of sense-hairs, and uniformly dis- 

 tributed amongst them a protection of scales. 



There is one point, a large one, however, on which I have not 

 sufficiently definite observations, and that is the relative distribution 

 and predominance of the different sorts of hairs, of which Bodine 

 defines three, and Jordan makes two classes, viz. "sense-hairs " and 

 "bristles." In -many cases these are easily distinguished, and in 

 different groups they vary much in their relative predominance, 

 whilst there is tolerable uniformity within the group. But it so 

 often occurred that I found it impossible to say in some particular 

 species precisely which hairs were which, that I gave up trying to 

 differentiate them. The proper course was, no doubt, greater care 

 and attention, and a wider field of observation ; this, I must confess, 

 I did not follow, and it will possibly appear that this has deprived 

 me of a means of distinguishing antennae which I have passed over 

 as being practically identical. 



I must confess to a doubt as to whether Dr. Bodine's three classes 

 quite include all the forms met with in the lower Incompletfe, the 

 range of size of hairs in these being very great, and yet difficult to 

 gauge, owing to the great variation in the size of the moths. In 

 many of the Obtect^e the " bristles " are easily distinguished from 

 the "sense-hairs," and in these I refer to "sense-hairs" when I 

 speak of hairs. It is in the Incompletae that it is often difficult to 

 distinguish them satisfactorily, and so quite possible to ascribe a 



