102 BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



Superfamily V : PSYCHIDES. 



The Psychides form undoubtedly one of the most difficult, the least 

 known, and most puzzling of the superfamilies of Lepidoptera. The 

 difficulties are largely increased by the extraordinary resemblance of 

 many of the imagines, the apterous females in the various groups being 

 particularly troublesome, and presenting similarities so close that they 

 are almost inseparable. The larvae, too, are so very much alike, struc- 

 turally, in each genus, that only very exact comparisons are of the 

 slightest use in determining those of the different species. The pupa? 

 present many general characters, dividing up, however, into two very 

 marked forms, the Micro -Psychid or Taleporiid (including all the general- 

 ised families as well as the specialised Luffiidae) and the Macro-Psychid 

 (including the Fumeidae, Ejrichnojrteryyidae and the higher Psychids, 

 usually so called) . The descriptions of the imagines of the old authors are 

 so vague and general that each of them would frequently cover a whole 

 group, whilst many of the figures are of the most unsatisfactory 

 character, in some instances even those of Bruand have changed 

 colour, and are utterly unrecognisable. Some of the different families 

 have been treated at length by various authors, but The Essai Mono- 

 yraphique sur la Tribu den Psychides, of Bruand, published in 1853, is 

 still the only complete work on the whole of the families comprised 

 within the limits of this superfamily. 



One of the most remarkable of the phenomena connected with this 

 superfamily is the reputed tendency for some of the species to produce 

 parthenogenetic progeny. This has already been dealt with in vol. i., 

 pp. 23-30. Reaumur was greatly puzzled by the facts that he observed 

 in Liijfia lapidella, and considered that the wingless examples might 

 consist of both males and females, or suspected that the winged males 

 had escaped his observation, whilst De Geer and Pallas both held the 

 opinion that many of the insects were parthenogenetic. Other ento- 

 mologists noticed the development of entire broods of wingless females 

 without observing the parthenogenetic tendency and explained the 

 occurrence of these broods as being due to the supposed fact that some 

 broods produced only males and others only females. Bruand was 

 not of this opinion, and states positively that he had obtained 

 examples of both sexes every time that he had reared more than a 

 dozen larvte of any species, and that he had found, as a rule, the sexes 

 about equal, or the females in excess. As he had never observed 

 parthenogenesis, and had frequently noticed that unfertilised eggs did 

 not hatch, he was utterly sceptical as to the occurrence of the pheno- 

 menon, and, after pointing out that Siebold had clearly shown that 

 Psychids had, like other Lepidoptera, very well developed organs of 

 reproduction, and that " l'eclosion cloit etre le resultat de l'accouple- 

 ment,"he concludes : " Je crois fermement que les deux sexes se repro- 

 duisent, chez les Psychides, comme chez les autres genres du meme 

 ordre." Other authors have also expressed views equally strong, but 

 too many observations appear to have been made for the suspicion to 

 be indulged that all the observers who have recorded the phenomenon 

 have been mistaken. Among the more modern authors, Heylaerts 

 unhesitatingly condemns (Ann. de la Soc. Ent. de Belyique, xxxv., 



