VI 



INTRODUCTION 



cal Society, vol. 17, pp. 93-228, pis. 6-8, March-July 

 1890, is cited as "Phycitidae of N. Amer." 



Barnes and McDunnough, "Contributions to the 

 Natural History of the Lepidoptera of North America," 

 vols. 2 (1913-1914) and 3 (1916-1917), is cited as 

 "Contributions." 



McDunnough's "Check List of the Lepidoptera of 

 Canada and the United States of America, Part II, 

 Microlepidoptera," published in the Memoirs of the 

 Southern California Academy of Science, vol. 2, No. 1, 

 1939, is cited as "Check list." 



Forbes's "Lepidoptera of New York and Neighboring 

 States," Cornell University Agricultural Experiment 

 Station Memoir 68, 1923, is cited as "Cornell Mem. 68." 



The distributional records for species in this paper are 

 obviously incomplete. They are based (with a few 

 exceptions noted in the text) solely on specimens I 

 have examined. This was the only safe procedure. 

 So many misidentifications have been made in the past, 

 even by lepidopterists of repute, that the records in 

 literature can not be accepted merely on the authority 

 of an author. Unless the specimens upon which his 

 statements were based can be examined and the state- 

 ments themselves verified, it is best to ignore them. 

 By taking them simply on faith and repeating them we 

 not only run the risk of perpetuating error, but do an 

 injustice to past workers who did not have or could not 

 use the evidence available to us. 



This caution applies with even greater force to 

 "accepted" generic and specific synonymy. I have been 

 very fortunate in being able to examine the genitaha 

 of so many holo types and in having authentic specimens 

 of most of the type species of described genera occurring 

 in the New World. All unqualified synonymy in this 

 paper is based upon genitaHc examination of such 

 material. From the synonymy of some species common 

 to both the New and Old Worlds I have omitted some 

 names — chiefly of Old World synonyms — ^because I 

 coxild not examine their types and had no certainty as 

 to correctness of their synonymizing. Such omissions 

 are discussed in the text. 



Classification and arrangement 



A general revision has a twofold purpose, a taxonomic 

 and a practical one: To define accurately, to delineate 

 as nicely as possible, and to name categories which, 

 as far as our knowledge permits, represent objective 

 realities in nature; and to arrange these categories in 

 an order that permits their ready identification. Both 

 purposes must be served if the revision is to have any 

 value as a contribution to knowledge or to be of 

 practical use to other workers. 



To satisfy both requirements I have adopted in this 

 paper a dual classification: a definition and division 

 into named categories of races, species, genera and 

 subfamilies; and an artificial, unnamed division, 

 between genus and subfamily, into groups of genera 

 or, in a few instances within a single genus, into groups 

 of species. 



The named categories themselves are more or less 

 tentative. They are not adequate expressions of the 

 truth. They are only approximations to it. As we 

 learn more we shall have to amend or replace our defini- 

 tions and the categories will come a Httle closer to the 

 realities they represent. The names (except for 

 homonyms) will always be available; but the concepts 

 will change. There are several indications that taxo- 

 nomic groupings between genus and subfamily may 

 eventually be possible; and that when we have a clearer 

 picture of host relations and larval characters, and more 

 extensive collections from imexplored regions, we may 

 be able to estabhsh tribes on a legitimate taxonomic 

 basis; but at present this is impossible. What few 

 definite derivations we can trace from genus to genus 

 show that tribal groupings would cut across the lines 

 of any artificial system we might be able to use. 



The artificial system here adopted (based on vena- 

 tional characters) is proposed merely for key purposes. 

 The keys themselves, except for the one separating the 

 subfamilies, are in no true sense a part of the taxonomic 

 system. They are keys, and keys only. They are 

 intended merely to open a ready way to the descriptions 

 of the genera and have been constructed on the assump- 

 tion that they must work for all normal specimens. 

 I hope so, for a key that wiU unlock a door only 75 

 (or even 90) percent of the time is a tool of little worth. 

 Here, a word of caution. No possible key wUl work 

 for abnormal specimens. The worker in Phycitidae 

 must be always on the alert for them, for the family 

 contains an imusual number of freaks (chiefiy vena- 

 tional abnormalities). Any one wishing to identify 

 phycitids must resign himself to the tedium of dissection 

 and slide making. Here, as in all the serious business of 

 science, there is no easy way, no short cut to knowledge. 



The groupings of genera and species, prefaced by 

 brief summaries of their common characters, which I 

 have interposed within the text, are intended only to 

 assist the reader and are not to be imderstood, in any 

 sense, as definitions of taxonomic (tribal or subgeneric) 

 groups. In a few instances they may be; but they are, 

 in intent, only divisions of convenience. 



The only portion of the keys offered as a description 

 of taxonomic imits is that separating the subfamilies 

 Anerastiinae and Phycitinae. This long-established 

 division of the family Phycitidae seems to be a sound 

 one, and in the main the subfamilies themselves appear 

 to be natural entities, although their definition leaves 

 much to be desired. Probably when the Anerastiinae 

 are thoroughly studied we may find other featin-es more 

 constant than the reduced and concealed tongue. 

 There may even be some shifting of genera across the 

 subfamily lines. However, this is only hopeful antici- 

 pation for the future and will remain so until the Old 

 World genera and species of the family are thoroughly 

 revised. For the present we shall have to content 

 ourselves with an imperfect definition. 



The chart opposite this page shows my interpretation 

 of the genera in their relation to each other and to the 

 system based on venational characters. 



