ON THE UNITY OF THE PSYCHIDS. 201 



set of hooks to certain abdominal segments, so placed on the inter- 

 S3i?m3ntal membrans, that they cud out of sight in the movement of 

 tha segments, and as they sweep round, thay no doubt act as lovers as 

 well as fixed points of prehension of the case, and also seize the silk of 

 the case, against the hooks (anterior) of the following segment, like 

 the teeth of a set of forceps. They have also {3^ ) two hooks on the 

 10th abdominal segment pointing ventrally and carried forwards, these 

 are ventral (not dorsal, and therefore not crcmastral) appendages, and 

 are very probably a persistence of the anal prologs of the larva. The 

 females are without the anal hooks and spines. 



The Taleporias have not the head bant so far down, and they 

 have none of these hooks like Psyche, but are distinguished by 

 having (both ^ and $ ) two minute recurved hooks on the dorsum of 

 the last segment— these, again, are probably not cremastral, being 

 rather far forwards. So far, then, as the pupa goes, there is somo 

 ground for the Staintonian division. 



When we come to the larva, we find in Psij:he that there is a 

 very special and unusual arrangement of the dorsal tubercles, the 

 trapezoidal tabarcles (i and ii of Dyar) are still trapszoidal, but the 

 anterior are no longer inner, but outer, sometimes very far out. I do not 

 know of any exception to this in Fs,/rhe. In the Taleporias ara 

 soni" Avith fairly normal trapezoidal tubercles, some with them nearly 

 square, and some with them decidedly Psychino in their position. 

 Ao-ain, at first sight at least, there is here something in favour of 

 separatin-^ the Taleporiids, but, curiously, there arc two (or more) 

 species th^lit bridge over the diflerence. Mr. Tutt proposes to erect 

 these into two new genera, on the larval and pupal (and some imagmal) 

 characters under the names of Liijfia and Baeotia. My own opuiion 

 is that they represent a separate subfamily. In Lutji a la puldla and 

 Baeotia ^ephiw, which are clearly Taleporiids by the male pupa, the 

 female pupa is spineless as in P^^yche, whilst the trapezoidal tubercles 

 are reversed to a degree that is uncommon even m the highest 

 Psychids. It is notable also that the anterior spines on the pupal 

 dorsum are a single row as in Psyche, and not a patch of several rows 

 as in Taleporia. n m i 



In PHjjia we have then a combinxtion of both Psyahid and iale- 

 poriid characters that prevent any division baing made here. The 

 larval tubercles and the peculiar spinous armature and hooks ot the 

 male pupa forbid any division between Psyche and Fionea as made by 



"" Meyrick's division appears to be founded on the posterior tibial 

 spurs. There is, in the case of P><yche, a purely secondary loss 

 of these spurs in the higher division, due entirely to the impediment 

 thev are to the male in his approach to the female, and there seems 

 little d)ubt that this is facilitatad in some species by the posterior legs 

 beino- introduced anI liin the case, to which the posterior spurs would be 

 a complete bar. The lower Psychids {palla, &c.) still pcssess the spurs, 

 although the female does not emerge from the case. W hen the temalo 

 emerges (Funtea and Taleporia) the spurs arc immatcnal. 



l\ni'iht say a good deal about the general similarities of cases, 

 habits, larval form and markings, &c., but though these aiH3 very 

 strong points, they are not conclusive, whilst those more defimto 

 points I have mentioned, I think, are so. 



