203 THE ento:.iologist's eecokd. 



My friend had socn my collecting cases safely through tho hands of 

 the Customs' au':horities, and as the sun was now going off th3 n irrow 

 and ensiosed lower valley, I took my soat and journeyed on by diligen3e 

 to Pro St. Didier. 



On th3 unity of the Psychidac. 



By T. A. CHAPMAN, M.D., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 



By P.j/chidac, I here mean the species placed by Bruaud in the 

 genus Pnjche, with the synonyms " Pfit/che, Fitmea, Talcporia, 

 Solcnohia, and Canepliora of Stephens, Duponchel, Zeller, &c.," 

 together with any others, obviously co-familiar with them. Others, 

 besides Bruand, have kept them together, but not a few systematists 

 of authority, like Barrett in his Lcpidoptera, Staudinger in the list of 

 Lepidoptera Avhich he publishes annually, and Meyrick in the Hand- 

 book, divide them, to use the old phraseology, into a Bombycid and a 

 Tineid family, which they place as far apart as they can. Curiously, 

 they are not agreed, however, as to how to divide them, Staiuton, 

 Barrett, and Staudinger making Bombyces of the Fumeas, Meyrick 

 giving these to the Tineas. 



I collected some material to elucidate the matter a few years ago 

 and had to thank many correspondents for living and other specimens. 

 I fully satisfied myself that the Psychids {P.^>/chc, Bruand) were a very 

 distinct group with no relationship to any other, except through its 

 lowest representatives, to Tinea {peUionclla) or more likely one of the 

 Aculeate-Lopidoptera {Adelidar). I waited, however, for more material 

 before attempting to convince others. Mr. Tutt, however, objects to 

 things being left to the Greek Kalends, and has stirred me up, apropos 

 of his new volume, which is to contain the Psychids, and has also 

 supplied me with a good deal of material to revive and extend my 

 previous observations. 



One might no doubt write a good deal on the question, but there 

 are a few salient and crucial points that do not require much verbosity 

 for their statement which appear to me quite to settle tlie matter. 



I may say that I have paid most attention to the piqia, but have 

 incidentally considered the larv*, and it is the characters presented by 

 these, that divide the family clearly from any other that I have examined, 

 and at the same time prevent any division at any point, except into 

 subfamilies. 



The division adopted by Stainton, Staudinger, and Barrett has, I 

 think, most to be said for it. 



The pupa? of Psiji'he, Fioiiea, P.pirhnoptrni.r, &c., are almost exactly 

 alike, and differ from the pupa of Sdlntnhid in some definite respects. 

 All, however, have the first two abdominal segments fixed, and the 

 third is fixed ventrally and movable dorsally, i.e., there is an inter- 

 segmental membrane dorsally that is functional, but not ventrally, 

 the movement allowed by the dorsum, taking effect ventrally, by 

 flexion only of the dermis, and 4, 5, 6 (and 7 in male) complete the 

 free segments. 



The pup e of tho P.^ijchc division have tha head bent very f jrwa^d, 

 making the mesothorax the anterior portion of the pupa ((? ). Its 

 more special and distinguishing character (c? ) is to have a posterior 



