CLASSIFICATION OF THE PSYCHIDES. 123 



broad and has the same general shape as that of the Talaeporiidae, 

 including the form of the eyes, of the clypeus, and of the labrum, which, 

 however, in the Psychidae, is more distinct from the clypeus, though in 

 Solenubia ivalshella it is nearly as separate. The shape of the cases of 

 the maxillary palpi of Psyche yraminella, (Eceticus abbotii, and Metrua 

 elomjata is as in Solcnobia icalshelld and S. pineti. The maxilla?, fairly 

 well developed in the Psycliidae, are much as in 8. ivalshella. The 

 labial palpi, though varying much in the different genera of Psychidae, 

 are essentially as in the Talaeporiidae (compare those of Psyche, 

 (Eceticus, and Entometa with those of Talaeporia pseudobomby cello). 

 Those of Platoeceticus are longer than in the other Psychidae, but still 

 more rudimentary than in Solenobia. In regard to the shape of the 

 maxillary palpi, which unite, forming a continuous bar or piece in 

 front of the labrum, Thyridopteryx differs from other Psychidae and 

 approximates to certain Hepialidae. ... In the Psychidae the 

 paraclypeal pieces or tubercles, as we might call them, are always 

 present. They are convex and very rugose. The labial or second 

 maxillary piece, is, in the Australian Eumetopa iynobilis, of the same 

 shape and sculpturing as in Psyche yraminella, but the large, round, 

 rugose pieces on each side, or 1st maxillary palpi, are single, not 

 divided into two parts, unless the irregularly trapezoidal pieces between 

 the maxillary palpi and the eyepiece be the homologue of the outer 

 portion. In the Australian Metrua. elonyata the short reduced labial 

 palpi are much as in Psyche yraminella, but are more deeply divided. 

 The two divisions I am inclined to consider as the second maxillary 

 (labial) palpi. In this genus, the 1st maxillary palpi also are as in 

 Psyche yraminella. It will then be seen that in the pupa of this 

 family the 1st and 2nd maxillary palpi vary very much in form, as 

 they probably do in the imagines, being more or less atrophied in the 

 latter, where they need to be carefully examined. On the other hand, 

 the maxilla? themselves (for in their pupal condition in haustellate 

 Lepidoptera, they have retained the separated condition of those of 

 the laciniate Lepidoptera), though short, are quite persistent in form. 

 The pupa of Platoeceticus ylocerii differs from that of (Eceticus abbotii 

 in the undivided 1st maxillary palpus (eyepiece) and the elongated 

 2nd maxilla? as w T ell as the narrower clypeal region, and the lack of 

 a cocoon or case-opener. . . . The outer division of the eye-piece 

 varies much in size. This is due to the varying width of the male 

 antennas, which, when wide, as in Pinara (FJntometa), Metrua, 

 Thyridopteryx and Psyche, overlap and nearly conceal it, while it is 

 entirely hidden in Platoeceticus. On the other hand, in male pupae of 

 Hepialus and Oncopera, where the antennae are small, narrow, and not 

 pectinated, these pieces are large. The end of the body has no 

 cremaster, but, what is unique, a hook arising from each vestigial anal 

 leg. It will be seen that from an examination of the pupa? the views 

 of Speyer, of Chapman, and of Comstock, as to the position of the 

 'Psychidae, are fully confirmed. They are more modified than the 

 Hepialidae since the females are wingless and limbless. It is very 

 plain that they are an offshoot from the Tineoids and especially from 

 the Talaeporiidae, which have no tongue and whose females are wing- 

 less and sack-bearers." 



We offer no apology for thus quoting Packard at length. It is 

 necessary, when such a violent division of a superfamily is made as 



