EPICHNOPTERYGIDAE . 



337 



Anterior tibial spur (enlarged 23 diameters) : 



Fig. 19. Bankesia staintoni (-38) 



20. Solenobia wockii (-48) 



21. Taleporia tubulosa (-40) 



22. Luffia lapidella (-50) 



23. Bacotia sepium (-50) 



24. Proutia betulina (-69) 



25. Proutia eppingella 

 (•68) 



Proutia eppingella 



(•68) 

 Bruandia reticulatella 

 Bruandia var. obscurella (-59) 

 Bruandia var. obscurella ( - 57) 

 Bruandia eomitella (-64) 

 Masonia crassiorella (England) 



(•70) 

 Masonia crassiorella (Cannes) 



(•66) 

 Masonia crassiorella (Cannes) 



(•65) 

 Masonia crassiorella (Germany) 



(•67) 



26. 



27. 

 28. 

 29. 

 30, 

 31. 



32. 



33. 



34. 



(France) 



(Epping) 



•56) 



Fig. 35. Masonia affinis (-70) 



36. Masonia subrlavella (-70) 



37. Masonia edwardsella (-71.) 



38. Masonia hibernicella (-67) 



39. Masonia mitfordella (-70) 



40. Bijugis bombycella (-53) 



41. Bijugis proxima (-56) 



42. Bijugis pectinella (-62) 



43. Fumea scotica (Bannock) 

 (•81) 



44. Fumea var. intermediella (Port- 

 land) (-80) 



45. Fumea scotica (Sutherland) 

 (•78) 



46. Fumea casta (-81) 



47. Fumea casta (-8li 



48. Fumea casta (-77) 



49. Fumea germanica (-88) 



50. Canephora unicolor (-88) (en- 

 larged 8 diams.) 



51. Pachythelia villosella (-88) (en- 

 larged 8 diams.) 



Family : Epichnopterygidae. 



The Epichnopterygids have always been classed with the Fumeids 

 with which they appear to have no very close connection, and as we have 

 already pointed out they are the only family of the higher Psychids that 

 retain the short anterior tibial spurs (when present) that characterise the 

 Micro-Psychids. Largely on this account (and the structure of the 

 antenna?) Chapman suggests that they have directly descended from 

 Luffiid-like ancestors, and represent, as it were, a terminal branch of the 

 more specialised Psychids in this direction . One suspects that the alliance 

 hitherto assumed between the Fumeids and Epichnopterygids has 

 perhaps been due to the fact that both use fine stems of grass, placed 

 longitudinally, with which to cover their cases, although the character 

 of the material and the mode of placing it differs considerably, fine flat 

 leaves rather than rounded culms being used by the Epichnopterygids, 

 and these are placed so as to make a close-fitting investment to the 

 silken tube, drawn out in a somewhat pointed manner at the apex, 

 and do not stand off bristling-like at the end of the case as do the 

 culms used by the Fumeids. This spindle-shaped case is really very 

 characteristic of the higher Epichnopterygids. The males of the two 

 groups differ much in wing-scaling, the Epichnopterygids having very 

 specialised, slender, filiform, hair-scales, with but few stria?, and, 

 therefore, widely different from the broad scales of the male Fumeids, 

 whilst the Epichnopterygid antenna? differ in that their pectinations 

 are scaleless and have sensory hairs on all their aspects, like the 

 Luffiids and Proutiids, and unlike the Fumeids and the Psychids 

 proper. 



The Epichnopterygids appear to fall naturally into two subfamilies, 

 the BiJHijinae and the Epichnopteryginae, the former with a ? 

 structurally like the Micro-Psychids and the Fumeids, but not leaving 

 the case for copulation, the latter with a ? structurally like those of 

 the Macro-Psychids without articulated antenna? and legs, and with a 

 very short ovipositor ; it also of course remains Avithin the case for 

 copulation. There is some little variation in the length of the anterior 

 tibial spurs (pi. iii) of the three described Bijugid species, those of pectin- 



v 



