NORTH AMERICAN EUCOSMINAE. 6 



fication of the Australian Tortricina ^ discarded the male costal fold 

 as a valid character, retaining, however, other secondary characters, 

 particularly those of the male antennae, though Busck has pre- 

 viously ^ pointed out the weakness of all such characters. As early 

 as 1876 Peyerimhoff* and again in 1885 Barrett^ had pointed out 

 the worthlessness of the costal fold. Peyerimhoff's paper is a fine 

 critical study of the various external characters of the Tortricoidea. 

 He saw much more than any of his contemporaries or successors their 

 weaknesses, but . unfortunately he was unable to suggest a better 

 arrangement. Dampf in 1908,^ in a very careful morphological study 

 of the genitalia of Rhoyobota naevana^ calls attention to the taxo- 

 nomic value of these organs, pointing out what he believes to be 

 generic differences in several European species and defining the sub- 

 families Tortricinae and Olethreutinae on genitalic characters.^ No 

 other author, as far as I know, has ever attempted to use genitalia 

 in classifying the moths of this group, and Dampf's paper is natur- 

 ally confined to the study in hand, suggesting rather than carrying 

 out the larger application. Kearfott's work with the Tortricid 

 families was confined to specific descriptions. Fernald's long-expected 

 revisions never appeared. His Synonymical Catalogue ^ is merely the 

 application of the Heinemann system to the North American fauna. 

 He did, however, a valuable and lasting work in fixing the types of 

 the various Tortricid genera (The Genera of the Tortricidae and 

 Their Types, 1908) and clearing the field of vexatious nomenclatorial 

 problems. Walsingham and Durrant's later work in the Biologia 

 has changed the terminology very little from Fernald except by 

 additions to the synonomy. Their few radical changes, such as the 

 substitutions of Cydia Hiibner for Carpocorpsa Treitsclike (with 

 pomonella Linnaeus as type) and the relegation of Laspeyresia 

 Hiibner to synonomy, are the result of the acceptance of Stephens 

 Catalogue in the matter of type fixation. On such questions the 

 writer prefers to follow the American authors, accepting the types 

 as fixed hj Fernald. 



In lumping all genera that could not be maintained on venational 

 or other structural characters common to both sexes, the authors of 

 the Biologia took a long step in advance toward a natural classifica- 

 tion. This is evidenced by the fact that the generic divisions here 



» Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales, vol. 36, pt. 2. 



s Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., vol. 19, 1906, p. 174. 



*Ann. Soc. Ent. France, vol. 6, ser. 5, pp. 523-546. 



^Ent. Mo. Mag., vol. 22, pp. 1-6. 



8 Iris, vol. 21, pp. 304-329. 



^ In 1917 I gave a short paper before the Washington Entomological Society (Proc. 

 Ent. Soc. Wash., vol. 19, pp. 137-138),. in which I separated the Olethreutidae and 

 Tortricidae on genitalic structure and criticised Meyrick's use of the uncus for that 

 purpose. I regret that at the time I was unacquainted with Doctor Dampf's paper, 

 which had already covered much of the same ground. 



« Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, vol. 10, 1882, pp. 1-72. 



