1S9S.] 191 



entomologists, shows that following Meyrick he very properly excludes this from 

 the family. 



Dr. Joi'dan, at the conclusion of his "Notice of the Skandinaviens fjadermott 

 of H. D. J. Wallengi-en," gave a list of the British PterophoridcB [Ent. Mo. Mag., 

 VI, 151 (1869)], commencing with Chrysocorys ; from this it would at first sight 

 appear that Wallengren had included Chrysocorys in the PterophoridcB, which was 

 not the ease, and Dr. Jordan appears to have misled Mr. Tutt, who wrote, Pter. 

 Br., 10, " Herr Wallengi'en first removed it to the Pterophori." This mistake in 

 classification probably originated with Curtis [Gruide, 188 (1831)], where we find, 



"1039 ~S.Gr *]. angustipeniiella. Festaliella,^uh.? 



1040 Pteeophoetts, 161." 

 and in Curtis' Guide (2 edn.), 216 (1837). 



"1039 Chetsocorts, Curt *1. scissella, Hw., anyustipennella. 



10396 Adacttlfs, 471 *1. Bennetii, B.E. 



1040 Pteeophoetts, 161." 



In Brit. Ent., XIV, PI. 663, expl. p. (2), (1837), Curtis, referring to Hiibner's 

 figures of the larva and pupa of Chryaocorys festaliella which he had copied, 

 wrote : " It is clear from them that this moth is closely allied to the Pterophori." 



The late Dr. Jordan [Ent. Mo. Mag., VI, 152 (1869)] quoted the " high 

 authority of Mr. Stainton " in support of his opinion as to the location of Chryso- 

 corys, and in the " Pterophoridce of California and Oregon " (1880), I followed this 

 lead apparently somewhat on the principle of tlie jumping sheep, and others of the 

 flock have done likewise, but there can be no doubt that this genus should be in- 

 cluded in the Elachistidce, in which it is scarcely an aberrant form. 



Dr. Fernald is quite right in eliminating Lineodes, Gn. (= Scoptonoma, Z.), 

 from the Pterophoridce ; Stenoptycha, Z., a South American genus allied to Lineodes, 

 but differing in neuration, should also be excluded, and both should be referred in 

 the PyraiistidcB. 



On pp. 4— 5 we are told that Latreille in 1796 " separated hexadactyla ivova 

 the group, and established for it the genus Orneodes." This is hardly correct ; 

 " Latreille, Prec. Gen. Ins., 148 (1796), created the genus Orneodes, omitting to cite 

 the type ; subsequently, however, Hist. Nat. Crust. Ins., Ill, 418 (1802) : XIV, 258 

 (1805), this omission was remedied, and hexadactyla, L. (P. Geoff., &c.), was cited 

 as the type " [Wlsm. and Drnt., Ent. Mo. Mag., XXXIII, 41—2 (1897)]. 



p. 5. — " Samoulle " is a misprint for " Samouelle," and the published title of 

 Hiibner's work is " Verzeicbniss bekannter Schmettlinge (not " Schmetterlinge "). 



p. 6. — I am unable to find that Stephens " adopted the genus Agdistis, Hiib.," 

 in his Catalogue (1829) ; indeed, he would have had no reason for doing so, as the 

 only British species, bennetii, Crt., was not described until 1833 ; but, according to 

 the "Illustrations" (IV, 370), he adopted Agdistes for bennetii inhis"Nomen- 

 clator " (2nd edition), which was published in 1833. I have not been able to verify 

 this reference. 



p. 7. — It is true that Vol. II, Part 2, of "Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands " is 

 dated on the title 1877, but Kirby, Zool. Eecord, XIII (1876), Ins., p. 187 (1878), 

 stated that it " was published not later than November, 1876." 



p. 8. — The date of Hofmann's "deutsclien Ptcrophorineu" (not"Ptei'ophorit?en") 

 is given as 1895. I have not yet been able to examine the original publication. 



