120 BBITISH LEPIDOPTEKA. 



need not be surprised that the superficial resemblance of the Fumeid 

 and Taleporiid females misled Herrich-Schaffer, but one is somewhat 

 astonished that the Epichnopterygid female did not point out the true 

 position of this family. Here one may draw attention to the fact that 

 in these higher Psychids, in particular, the ? is the most modified, 

 and, therefore, although one may look to the male for the position of 

 the superfamily among others, one must turn to the ? for the 

 characters by which the members of the group must be arranged 

 among themselves. Divisions (especially generic), therefore, based on 

 female characters, are correctly founded, and are not to be put aside if 

 unsupported by male characters, and should be retained, perhaps, even 

 if contradicted by them. It is these groupings that are now wanted 

 before we can get much further with the classification of the higher 

 subfamilies and genera. 



Stainton separated the Macro-Psychids from the Micro-Psychids, 

 but included the Epichnopterygids and Fumeids in the former section, 

 sandwiching the latter between the Blatypterygidae and Cochliopodidae. 

 Barrett follows Stainton in placing the larger Psychids (Psyche, 

 Fpichnopteryx, and Fumea) in a heterogeneous group called Bojibycina 

 — comprising such superfamilies as Zeuzerides, Hepialides, Cochlidides, 

 Nolides, IAthosiides, Aretii(h>s, and Biparides — arid locates them next to 

 the Liparids, because "their general structure is rather closely con- 

 nected with the last genus (Oryyia) through Penthophora morio — a 

 semi-transparent-winged, black species, with semiapterous female, of 

 which the larva lives on grass, but is not a case-bearer." We are not 

 quite clear in what way "the general structure" of Psychids "is 

 closely connected " with Liparids. We doubt whether all Psychids 

 are black, their females semiapterous, or that all their larva? feed on 

 grass. 



Bruand concluded that, as a whole, the Psychids originated with 

 the Tineids, and that they should be placed among the Tineina (as 

 previously understood), immediately preceding the Tineites. We have 

 already stated that Bruand included almost the whole of the Psychids 

 in one genus — Psyche — but his subdivisions of the genus make this a 

 mere matter of terms, and his groups correspond almost exactly with 

 the genera adopted today. He asserts that, taken as a whole, and in 

 spite of the character of the inner nervure, the general system of the 

 neuration is as analogous as that of other equally important groups, 

 and he insists that closely allied species in other genera often differ 

 more than does the albida division of Psyche (= Oreopsyche , Heyl.) 

 from the pullet or crassiorella divisions (= Epichnopteryx and Fumea). 

 He considers that his plate of the neuration is sufficient to convince 

 one that this character justifies him in uniting the so-called Tineid 

 and Bombycid sections in one group and placing thein in the Tineids. 

 On the various characters he enunciated, Bruand associated Typhonia, 

 Heteroyynis, Psyche and Psychoides in one superfamily, which he called 

 a tribe. His genus Psyche comprised the genera Psyche, Fumea, 

 Epichnopteryx, Solenobia, Taleporia (in part), as used by Staudinger 

 and Wocke in their Catalog, 1871, as well as Bankesia, Bacutia, 

 Luffia and Proutia (of our own definition), and Bruand considers the 

 characters presented by these so homogeneous as not to permit the 

 establishment of more than unimportant subdivisions. 



With regard to the neuration it may be here mentioned that, 



