CLASSIFICATION OF THE PSYCHIDES. 119 



nopterygidae and Fumeidae were so placed by Borkhausen, Brahm, 

 Vieweg, and Ochsenheimer. The first real attempt to classify the 

 Psychids, however, was made by Hiibner. He includes the whole 

 superfamily in the Tineides, and divides them (Verzeichniss, pp. 398- 

 400) into " Canephorse-vera? " and " Canephora? -falsa?," the former 

 representing the so-called Bombycid, and the latter the so-called 

 Tineid, section. Guenee, too, was a strong supporter of the Tineid 

 affinities of the Psychids, and insisted that they formed but one super- 

 family. In 1846, he criticised (Ann. Soc. Ent. France, 2, iv., pp. 6-7) 

 the position of the Psychids, objected to their being placed near the 

 Liparids, and pointed out how vital are the differences between the 

 apterous female Orgyiids and Liparids on the one hand, and the 

 wingless female Psychids on the other, both in their body-struc- 

 ture, antenna?, ovipositor (terebriform in Psychids), &c. He compares 

 the larval habits of Taleporia with those of Adda, and concludes that 

 the Psychid alliance is with Adela, Incurvaria, &c, and not with 

 Liparis and Orgyia. 



Stephens considered that the Psychids were Bombyces on the 

 grounds of " the rudimentary oral apparatus, which is, in general, so 

 slightly developed in the group, especially among the typical species, 

 as to become nearly obsolete in some of the gigantic ones, and the 

 same deficiency of trophi serves likewise to detach them from the 

 Tineae, in which they are typically so highly developed as to exhibit all 

 four palpi most distinctly without the aid of a lens." He allies them 

 with: (1) The Crepuscularia (through Heterogynis penella). (2) The 

 Tineids (through Taleporia). (3) The Bombyces (through Oiketicus). 

 Horsfield places the Psychids with the Hepialids, uniting them by 

 means of the singular genus, Oiketicus, Guilding. 



Bruand, in 1853, criticised the superficial division of the Psychids 

 into Macro-Psychid (Bombycid) and Micro-Psychid (Tineid) sections. 

 Duponchel defined the Tineid section as having : " Les fourreaux nus 

 ou unis, et non revetus de pailles ou debris de feuilles commes ceux 

 des Psyches," and then placed the modern genera Epiclinopteryx, 

 Fumea, Proutia, Bacutia, among them, whilst Taleporia was placed among 

 the Macro-Psychids and later among the Micro-Psychids. Herrich- 

 Schaffer places (Sys: Bearb., ii., pp. 17-22) the Macro-Psychids 

 between the Cocliopods and the Heterogynids, and observes that "the 

 habitus of the Psychids is somewhat similar to the Cocliopods, the 

 absence of the tongue and secondary eyes (ocelli) and the fact that the 

 hind tibia? possess only one pair of spurs, afford other points of resem- 

 blance. The two inner marginal nervures of the forewings that are 

 present in the Cocliopods are united towards the base in Psychids, 

 whilst the three inner marginal nervures of the hindwings are, in 

 some Psychids, almost perfect, although in many the third is scarcely 

 to be recognised, especially towards the base. The Psychids would 

 accordingly connect the Cocliopods with the Tineids — Ganephora 

 {Fumea, Epiclinopteryx) and Taleporia ; on the other hand, they 

 approach, through the Heterogynids, still nearer to the Zygaenids 

 (Anthrocerids). The relationship of this family with the Bombycids, 

 &c, especially with JAparis morio, is only superficial." To this extent 

 then Herrich-Schaffer follows Duponchel and carries over the Epich- 

 nopterygids and Fmneids to the Tineid stirps, whilst separating them 

 from the Macro-Psychids (a method since followed by Meyrick). One 



