When possible, McLachlan included in his descriptions material based on 

 Pictet's, other authors' data, as well as his own material. McLachlan' s 

 scientific career lasted almost 40 years; in addition to work on the 

 systematics and fauna of the order, he gave much attention to the larvae; 

 among his first publications are two small articles devoted to the feeding 

 of the larvae and the construction of their cases (McLachlan, 1863; 1864). 

 He also published a number of articles with descriptions of caddis fly 

 larvae and their biology (McLachlan, 1867; 1869; 1872; 1874; 1879; 1881), 

 and his paper on the behavior of the larvae of Phacopterys brevi- 

 p e nn i s (1902) was one of his last publications. 



At the end of the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th, publications 

 on Trichoptera followed two trends: l) further development of the 

 systematics of the order and the division of the families established by 

 McLachlan; 2) an intensive study of the pre-imaginal stages, mainly the 

 larvae. 



While McLachlan enlarged taxonomic units, Wallengren (Sweden, 1891) 

 "split" taxonomic units in his large work on caddis flies. 



Wallengren recognized 16 families instead of the 7 families of 

 McLachlan (ibid., p. 12);* some of these families (most of them with a 

 changed generic composition) have been accepted, but others were not 

 accepted by later authors. Wallengren included data on the larvae in his 

 descriptions and diagnoses whenever possible. 



Klapalek in Czechoslovakia published 2 large works with descriptions 

 . of the larvae of a number of species (1888; 1893). In the introduction to 

 the first publication, Klapalek (ibid., 1, Figures 1 and 2) divides the larvae 

 132 into campodeiform and eruciform larvae; this important generalization was 

 the guideline for the later studies of Siltala, and for the establishment of the 

 natural suborders by Martynov. Klapalek names the larvae of Philopo- 

 tamus as examples of campodeiform larvae; these larvae have a long 

 prognathous head and legs of almost equal size and similar form; they have 

 deep constrictions between the segments of the movable, flexible abdomen 

 and long, posteriorly directed anal legs. As an example of eruciform larvae, 

 he cites the larva of Hale su s; it has a hypognathous head, its legs are of 

 different length and form, the constrictions between the segments of the 

 massive, cylindrical abdomen are shallow; the larvae have a portable case 

 and tubercles on the first abdominal segment. Klapalek later discussed 

 systematic questions ((1903) 1904:8, 178-180);-* he placed the Rhyaco- 

 philidae at the head of the list of the families; family Philopotamidae was 

 placed second as he considered it a primitive family related to the 

 Rhyacophilidae. 



The larvae of Trichoptera were studied by Struck in Lubeck, Germany 

 (1896; 1899; 1900; 1903). In his last article, this author arranged the 

 figures in such a way as to offer their use to some extent as a key for 

 identifying the larvae; other keys were not compiled until the publication 

 of Ulmer's work (1903). 



Inaequipalpia: Phryganeidae, Agrypniidae, Limnophilidae, Apataniidae, Sericostomatidae, Aequipalpia: 

 Hydroptilidae, Beraeidae, Molannidae, Leptoceridae, Hydropsychidae, Philopotamidae, Psychomyiidae, 

 Chimarrhidae.Crunophilidae.Glossosomatidae. Crunophilidae is a synonym of Rhyacophilidae, as already 

 stated by McLachlan (ibid.). 

 Previous authors quoted this work from the reprint (Klapalek, 1903:1—37). 



5724 124 



