JOURNAL OF VARIATION. 



Vol. XI. No. 6. June 1st, 1899. 



The Phylogeny of the Lasiocampids. (Illustrated by Plate.) 



By HARBISON G. DYAR, Ph.D. 



Mr. Tutt has requested me to give my views on this subject in a 

 critical form, referring, I presume, more particularly to his recent 

 paper in the Procecdhu/s of the South London Entomolo(/ical and Natural 

 RiHtonj Societij, 1898. Mr. Tutt has there constructed a genealogical 

 tree for the genera of the family of the British species. He modestly 

 disclaims any special value for this tree, yet, except in regard to the 

 position assigned to Malacowina and Poecilocampa (which I would 

 transpose) , it corresponds rather closely with one that I have prepared, 

 and I think it is mainly on the right lines. I will give as briefly as 

 possible the reasons which have led me to form the tree as I have 

 done. 



Returning first to Mr. Tutt's paper, I notice that he does not 

 understand why I call the family Lachncidae. This is simply an attempt 

 to apply the rule of priority to family names. I take it that any name 

 in plural form (-ides, -ina, -idae, &c.) is valid if it is founded on a valid 

 generic name, i.e., one not preoccupied, or a synonym. When several 

 such names have been proposed, I would take the oldest, and in this 

 case Hiibner's Tantamcn term Lachneides [Lachnein) is the earliest such 

 term that I find. I have only changed his ending in accordance with 

 recent usage. Again Mr. Tutt says that I "drop Plujllodesma 

 altogether." I have applied the term to the South American plndonia, 

 Cram. Hiibner places in P/ii/llodes)iia — jdiidonia, ({iiorifdlia, poptdi- 

 folia, ilicifolia and tremidi/olia. The four latter being removed to 

 other genera, jdtidonia remains as the type. 



I do not propose to discuss Mr. Tutt's phylogeny of the lAuiix-am- 

 pldac, as the subject is too large for the present purpose. I may, how- 

 ever, simply refer to my own view on the subject, published in the 

 Proceed in;is of the Boston Soeietij of Natural Ilistnri/ (1896), vol. xxvii., 

 p. 146. Returning, however, to the relationships of the Lasiocampid 

 genera among themselves, the English species divide into four 

 phyla : — 



Phijlitm A. — The hirva is cylindrical, primary warts not altogether obscured, 

 secondary hair simple; no special structures. Moth with ordinary venation, veins 

 C and 7 of hind-wings from the end of the cell, vein 8 forming a small intercostal 

 cell at base by anastomosis with the discal cell. 



Phtjlum J3.— Larva flattened, primary warts visible only as far as the largest 

 ones, i and iii ; secondary hairs modilied with white hairs subventrally ; lateral 

 lappets and coloured thoracic bands. Moth with extraordinary venation, intercostal 



