8 BULLETIN 123, UNITED STATES NATIONAL MUSEUM. 



shaped and evenly spined cucuUus. This type is best exemplified in 

 the Laspeyresiinae which from the standpoint of genitalia exhibits 

 the highest development of the Olethreutidae. 



In the subfamily Eucosminae there are apparently three main lines of 

 development, three group complexes as it were. The first and largest 

 is the Epiblema-Eucosma-Thiodiia line with its several off-shoots ; the 

 second and in some respects more primitive (as to uncus and harpes 

 structure) but otherwise more advanced type (on wing form) is the 

 Epinotia-Ancylis line with its laterals. Most of the genera trace 

 either to one or the other of these two stems. A few {Rhopohota^ 

 Kundrya, Norma) show affinities to both lines and are of doubtful 

 origin, but on the whole seem more closely related to the Epinotia 

 than the Eucosma group. The third distinct line is represented by a 

 single genus, EysPricophora^ a highly specialized type with its divided 

 harpes and lost gnathos, but on other genitalia structures a primitive 

 form not linked up with any other Olethreutid group or genus that I 

 know. The modified eighth abdominal segment so prominently de- 

 veloped in this genus and Pseudogalleria is also somewhat similarly 

 developed in Proteoteras. Venation places Flystricophora in Eucos- 

 minae, but the genitalia while distinctly Olethreutid show many 

 resemblances to the Tortricid type. It has no derivatives and prob- 

 ably is an advanced specialization from the most pnmitive type. At 

 any rate, it forms a line by itself. Pseudogalleria^ the most advanced 

 of the Eucosminae and what may be considered to represent a possible 

 fourth line, shows more affinity to the Eucosma than to the Epinotia 

 groups. In structure it has much in common with RJiyacionia and 

 forms the connecting link between the Eucosminae and Laspeyre- 

 siinae. If genitalia alone were considered, it would easily go into 

 the latter subfamily. 



At this point it might be well to consider for a moment the relative 

 position of the two families Tortricidae and Olethreutidae. Our dis- 

 tinguished authority on dogmatic evolution, Mr. Edward Meyrick, 

 derives the former from the latter. To quote his own words,^ " the 

 external relationship of the family (Tortricidae) appears to be clear; 

 it is a development from the Argyroploce group of the Eucosmidae 

 (Olethreutidae) the transitional connection (through Mictoneura in 

 the Tortricidae and ArticoUa in the Eucosmidae) being almost com- 

 plete. As the Argyroploce group exhibits a not inconsiderable degree 

 of modification relatively to the Laspeyresia group, which is the 

 primitive form of the Eucosmidae, the origin of the Tortricidae must 

 be regarded as markedly later than that of the Eucosmidae." With 

 these conclusions and their premises we are compelled to disagree. 

 The family Olethreutidae is sharply distinguished from the Tortri- 



» Genera Insectorum : Tortricidae, Fasc. 149, 1913, p. 2. 



