PSYCHIDES. 103 



pp. 59-60) those who hold the possibility of the occurrence of par- 

 thenogenesis, and states that authors who have published assumed 

 facts asserting it, have been misled by erroneous observations. 



The constitution of the psychides has been a burning question for 

 many years, and the alliances of this superfamily have been repeatedly 

 discussed. Even now modern authors like Meyrick have followed 

 Duponchel, Zeller, and Herrich-Schaffer in sub-dividing the group 

 into two sections, one being placed with the so-called Bombycids, the 

 other with the Tineids. The comparative generalisation of the species, 

 in all their stages, makes them most difficult to deal with, but Chap- 

 man protests (Ent. Record, xi., pp. 200-203) as strongly against the 

 separation of the two sections as did Bruand half a century ago. The 

 latter author (like many others) included the Heterogynides [the life- 

 history of one species of which, tieteroyynis pendla, has recently been 

 worked out by Chapman (Trans. Ent. Soc. l.oiul., 1898, pp. 141-150)] 

 among the Psychids, but although we are inclined to allow consider- 

 able affinity between the two superfamilies, yet there can be no doubt 

 that the Heterogynids are more distinctly allied to the Anthrocerids (in 

 spite of the apterous female, the arrangement of the larval tubercles, 

 the mode of egg-laying, and the general appearance of the Hetero- 

 gynid imago), the habits of the larva, the structure of the cocoon, and 

 the pupa, being decidedly Anthrocerid in character. Chapman considers 

 that, if Heteroyynis has any relationship with the Psychids, it must 

 have branched off before the latter left the Tineids, i.e., before it had 

 made the first steps to a vermiform female, before, in fact, it was a 

 Psyche. Our own opinion, of little value in the face of Chapman's 

 more mature conclusions, is that there is a less distant alliance 

 between the two superfamilies than is here suggested, and that the 

 apterous female, the mode of copulation, the re-entry of the female 

 into the cocoon to oviposit, the arrangement of the larval tubercles, 

 &c, have not been entirely developed independently, but that the two 

 have come from a common stem, even if reaching back as far as the 

 point at which the Psychids and Tineids had a common ancestor. 

 Still, it is recognised as one of the debatable points in the construc- 

 tion of our phylogenetic tree {ante, vol. i., pi. i) and as such must be 

 left open for future discussion. 



It now becomes necessary to define the terms relating to this super- 

 family. There appears to be little doubt that Psychoides verhuella, 

 referred to this superfamily by Bruand, is rather a Tineo-Lamproniid, 

 and as such, is properly excluded. On the other hand, the genera 

 Viplodoma, Narycia, Lypusa, Psilothrix, and Melasina appear to fall 

 distinctly within its limits, although possessing winged females. 

 There can be no question as to Talcpuria, Ba?ikesia, and Solenobia, all 

 of which retain more or less characteristic generalised larva? and pupae, 

 whilst the Luffiidae (a specialised Taleporiid family) and Fumeidae, 

 Kpichnopterygidae, Psychidae, and Oiketicidae comprise the higher 

 Psychids generally so-called. These latter, as well as the Taleporiids 

 (Taleporia, Bankesia and Solenobia), have apterous females, but all the 

 families detailed above have case-bearing larva? that cover the outside 

 of their cases with earth, lichen, grass-stems, pieces of leaves, or some 

 other extraneous substances. The alliance of these families and the 

 cla ideation of the genera included in the superfamily will be con- 

 sidered later. 



