230 THE ENTOMOLOGIST S RECORD. 
The relationship of Philea (irrorella), Cybosia (mcsomella), and 
Endrosa (aurita). 
By T. A. CHAPMAN, M.D., F.Z.S., F.E.S. 
The second volume of the British Museum Catalogue of Phalaenae is 
as striking a monument of industry on the part of Sir George Hampson 
as the first. It contains those families that are allied to the Arctiadae, 
viz., the Lithosianae and Nolanae. Though I believe the reasons 
against this association of the Nolanae to hold good, my high estimate 
of the value of the work is not affected. 
Having no special knowledge of these groups to enable me to test 
the soundness of the classification within the groups, I have looked 
up the little group of Fndrosa, Philea and Cybosia, with which I 
happen to be familiar. The first point to strike one is the accuracy of the 
characters laid down for each genus and species, short and condensed, 
and implying much work compressed into small space, and giving one 
some idea of the labour involved in the whole volume, and if equal 
accuracy obtains elsewhere, the value of the work is certainly great. 
The next point is that these three genera are separated and defined, 
and their order and phylogeny determined chiefly (apparently) by the 
one fact that the point of origin of vein 2 of the hindwings yaries a 
little. 
In Philea it is from the middle of cell, in Cybosia from beyond the 
middle of cell, andin Hndrosa from well beyond the middle of cell. The 
other characters are of minor importance or very inconstant. It is 
true, for instance, that vein 8 of the hindwing usually rises nearer the 
end of cell in Endrosa (auriéa) than in Philea (trrorella), but I have 
specimens of aurita with it quite as far back as is usual in 7rrorella. 
The g genitalia are almost identical, probably quite so if one took a 
long series. Those of Cybosia (mesomella) ave quite different. Reyert- 
ing “to vein 2 of forewing, this also like 8 of hindwing varies much in 
position and length, theaverage position is as stated, but many specimens 
overlap. The only constant differences between aurita and irrorella 
are in the density and length of the hairs and scaling, and a greater 
breadth of the palpi in aurita. But these are certainly not generic 
differences, and do not admit of their being separated by C ‘ybosia — 
which is structurally distinguishable in antenne and yarious other 
particulars. 
In the phylogeny given, however, Philea gives rise to Cybosia, and 
Cybosta to Hndrosa, and yet Cybosia is more distinct than are the other 
two genera. Not only, for instance, are irrorella and aurita so close 
as to belong really to one genus, poss ae distinct from that containing 
mesomella (Cybosia), but te WwW ould be possible to say something as to 
their even being races of one very variable species. The curious 
auricular (?) development of the 3rd trochanters in //ndyosa and Philea, 
which is wanting in Cybosia, is not alluded to, but is a strong proof 
that Cybosia cannot be wedged between them. 
The Sagacity of Larva of Galleria mellonelia (cereana), Linn. 
By R. HAMLYN HAMLYN-HARRIS, F.R.M.S., F.Z.S., F.E.S., &e. 
It is a matter of no small interest to note how the larve of certain 
Species of insects show a decided instinct for self-preservation. Among 
many, more especially among imagines, we are in possession of varied 
