the predominant position of the large genus Drusus among the other 

 small genera. The authors differ about the phylogenetic relationships of 

 the Drusinae and on its position in the Limnophilidae. Schmid is of the 

 opinion that it is unlikely that the adults of Drusinae are closely related to 

 the Apataniinae; he considers the Drusinae as highly specialized and places 

 them next to the Limnophilinae (after the Neophylacinae and Pseudosteno- 

 phylacinae); he assumes that the close relationship of the Drusinae to the 

 primitive subfamilies Dicosmoecinae and Apataniinae persists in the early 

 stages of development, but disappears in the adults (Schmid, 1956:6). We 

 should like to state that a number of morphological larval characters, such 

 as the presence of a dorsal ridge on the head, the form of the pronotum, the 

 rich secondary chaetotaxy on coxae and femora, the dorsolateral processes 

 on the 8th abdominal segment, and the characteristic form of head and 

 mandibles of the pupa show characters which also prove that the subfamily 

 is a specialized group. It seems more correct to consider the resemblance 

 of the mandibles of Ecclisopteryx and Apatania and the form of the 

 seta of the claw of these larvae as convergents caused by similar conditions 

 in cool running water and by feeding on microflora on stones. 



Nielsen confirms the view which had been repeatedly expressed before, 

 that the family Sericostomatidae is collective and artificial. He does not 

 recognize this family and places its subfamilies in his classification 

 according to the characters of the larvae. He places the subfamily 

 Goerinae in the Limnophilidae and the Sericostomatinae in the Beraeidae. 

 Schmid (1955:14)* did not accept this classification. 



It follows from the foregoing that neither a morphological analysis of 

 the larvae and pupae nor the revision of the types on which the classification 

 149 of adult Trichoptera is based resulted in agreement. On the contrary, 



differences of opinion became sharper. These differences do not result from 

 different interpretations, but are based on contradictory data obtained in 

 various fields. This suggests that numerous unsolved problems remain in 

 the classification of the group. 



Nielsen showed that the classification of Trichoptera is based on the 

 genitalia of the adults, although the views on the morphology of the genitalia 

 are not always accurate. According to him, even the recent work of Schmid 

 is not free of this disadvantage. Nielsen made detailed comparative 

 morphological studies of the male genitalia and published a large monograph 

 on this subject (Nielsen, 1957). 



Nielsen's publications had a great influence on the descriptions of the 

 larvae of Trichoptera. 



The Rumanian entomologists Murgoci and Boto^aneanu made extensive 

 studies on the larvae and adults of Trichoptera of Rumania, Poland and 

 Bulgaria; Botosaneanu (1959, etc.) also published several works on the 

 ecology of Trichoptera. 



We should like to discuss the influence of the publications in the 1940's 

 and 1950's on the classification of Trichoptera. 



Since the 1930's, the classification of Trichoptera was revised along 

 3 lines: l) the creation of new families because new species were described 

 which could not be included in the old families; 2) the enlargement of the 

 families of the classification of Ulmer-Martynov; 3) the division of families. 

 The number of families increased from 16 in 1924—1934 to 30;** the number 

 of species came close to 5,000 (Ross, 1956:1, 6). 



* We consider the Goeridae and Sericostomatidae as families. 

 ** Annulipalpia — 11 families, Integripalpia — 19 families. 



139 



