NOTES ON THE FUMEIDS. 61 
and carries two very short pectinations, which are longer on the 4th 
and reach full length on the 5th or 7th, dwindling again gradually to 
the penultimate joint, where they are short, the last joint being simple. 
In several instances, apparently of individual and not of specific 
variation, however, there is intercalated between the 2nd and 8rd 
joints as above described, a joint that is very short and disc-like, with- 
out pectinations ; in others three and four as above described are fused 
together into one long joint with four pectinate processes. Similarly, at 
the extremity of the antenne, the last simple jot may be of various 
lengths or may be wanting, the then last joint being pectinated, or 
sometimes it might be more correct to say that the last normally 
simple joint possessed pectinations. 
The examination of the antennz is unfortunately handicapped by 
two circumstances. In the first place the antenne are very apt to be 
damaged by mould, mites, Psoc?, or other destructive agencies to a degree 
much “bey ond any thing in most lepidopterous insects. In the second, 
they can only be confidently described when removed from the specimen 
and mounted in balsam or otherwise, and this is quite inadmissible in 
regard to many specimens, in fact, in regard to any not one’s own 
property, unless by special permission. Yet, without this, one cannot 
certainly count the number of joints, as the first pectination varies a 
good deal in length and in the extent to which it is visible beyond the 
thick scaling of the basal joints and of the face. Asa rule, I think, 
descriptions stating the number of antennal joints mean what they 
profess, viz., actually all the antennal joints, and may or may not be 
accurate owing to the difficulties I have mentioned, but may be taken 
as being to a high degree of probability within one of the truth. In 
other cases, however, I think descriptions merely cite the number of 
visible joints, that is, of pectinated joints visible in a good specimen. 
This is the case, for example, unless I am much mistaken, in the dis- 
tinction drawn by Hofmann (Berliner Ent. Ztschft., iv., p. 32) between 
the antenne of nitidella and affinis, where he gives the former sixteen 
joints and the latter 21, when truly they have eighteen and 28 (or 
more properly 24). 
I have carefully measured the length of the antennal joints and of 
the pectinations in a number of specimens. ‘The uniformity of these 
throughout the genus is quite beyond what I expected. There are one 
or two anomalies that may be of some definite meaning. ‘The great 
mass of specimens have pectinations of a length between -49 and ‘51 
of amm., and the length of a joint varies from ‘183 to :210. The 
exceptions in the pectinations are an affinis, which has them ‘56mm., 
and an intermediella, preserved in balsam four years ago and probably 
placed under the cover glass shortly after emergence and subjected to 
pressure. ‘This may account for the otherwise anomalous figure of 
-67— the joints in this specimen are also long, -216; or it may be 
that these are the correct measurements and that those taken from dry 
specimens are in error owing to contraction. However this may be, it 
remains that fifteen antenne, belonging to MM. crasstorella, M. sub- 
fiavella, M. edwardsella, M. ajfinis, F. intermediella, FE’. casta, F’. 
germanica, and Ff’. bowerella, have pectinations, of which the largest do 
not vary beyond from -49mm. to ‘53mm. in length, a difference well 
within errors of measurement. The length of the antennal joints is 
less uniform. Four M. crassiorella vary from ‘164mm. to ‘195mm. 
