MAOBO-PSYOHINA. 269 



differences between the latter are, however, so strong that one cannot 

 suppose that any really close alliance possibly exists between them, 

 and more recent study would lead us [if not to separate them even 

 more widely than our phylogenetic tree [ante, p. 126) suggests] to 

 carry the Epichnopterygids over to the Luffiid side of the tree, whilst 

 Proutia should be much farther removed from Fumea than we have 

 there suggested. The Epichnopterygid ? is completely Macro- 

 Psychid in structure and habit, and the $■ has undergone such 

 remarkable scale- specialisation that we have long hesitated to unite 

 them at all closely with the Fumeids, which have an araneiform J 

 and well-scaled $ , and Chapman's recent studies tend to show that 

 even the assumed intermediate Bijugis, with its semi-vermiform J , 

 has not been derived from Fumea but from Luffia, and that, therefore, 

 so far as Bijugis is an intermediate form, it is intermediate between 

 Luffia (or Luffiid-like Psychids) and Epichnopteryx, and not between 

 Fumea and Epichnopteryx. Our reasons for these conclusions are given 

 more at length later. We consider, therefore, that the Epichnop- 

 terygids are less related to the Fumeids than is generally supposed, 

 and they have obviously, from the characters already enumerated, 

 attained more distinct Macro-Psycbid features than have the latter. 

 Barrett has placed Sterrhopterix hirsutella among the Epichnopterygids, 

 without, however, giving any reason. Its structure altogether forbids 

 the association, as it is quite a typical Empedopsychid in structure and 

 habits. The supposed similarity of the Fumeid and Epichnopterygid 

 males is entirely superficial, the former having large well-formed scales, 

 whilst the latter has a clothing of hairs and piliform scales, and the ner- 

 vure dividing the discoidal cell bifurcates at its outer extremity, cutting off 

 a portion of the discoidal cell, and forming what Heylaerts calls the 

 " cellula intrusa," a character generally, but not entirely, wanting in the 

 Fumeids. According to Heylaerts the three species that he places in his 

 genus Bijugis — bombycella (and var. rotundella) , p>roxima, pectinella (and 

 var. perlucidella) have hairs and slender scales like the Epichnopterygid 

 species, and also have the " cellula intrusa" as they, whilst the female 

 has articulated antenna and legs like the Fumeids, and yet " does not 

 leave the case for copulation." We may here note that Proutia, too, 

 has the Epichnopterygid "cellula intrusa," and, in this respect, dis- 

 agrees with the Fumeids. One would like to know the exact species 

 about which Heylaerts makes (p. 47) the statement that " quelques 

 Psyche vrais et quelques Oiketicina femelles ont des pattes parfaitement 

 articulees aussi," for there is in the British Museum collection a large 

 ? Oiketicid case, from which a female pupa-skin protrudes much as do 

 those of the Micro-Psychids. This case is placed above the name Amatissa 

 comorta''- and is labelled as coming from Sikkim, 1893. Heylaerts further 

 states that " une foule de Psyche (vraies) femelles quittent a moitie leur 

 fourreau avant la copulation, et n'y rentrent entierement qu' imm£- 

 diatement avant l'acte copulatif, precisement comme dans le genre 

 Bijugis." This possibly refers to the movement that certain Psychids 

 make in order to break open the silken tube that closes the free end of 

 the case during the pupal period, and that thus admits the entrance of 



* Under this name are (1) three males, apparently belonging to two (? three) 

 distinct species, (2) a large ? case from which this ? pupa protrudes, and (3) a 

 smaller case which one supposes might belong to the species represented by the 

 smaller male in the series. 



