338 BEITISH LEPIDOPTEBA. 



ella being somewhat longer than those of bombycella and proximo,, the 

 latter approaching rather to Psychidea, which tends to lose the spurs, a 

 result that is achieved by Epichnopteryx. It is clear from this that, in 

 these transitional groups, this spur is more or less a fluid quantity, not 

 settled into the short (or obsolete) one of the Epichnopterygids or the 

 long one of Fumea. The Bijugids, although thus affected by the 

 Proutiid and Fumeid tendencies to lengthen the anterior tibial spurs, 

 did not advance far in this direction; they did so, however, sufficiently 

 to show that they are a separate side branch of the Epichnopterygid 

 stem and not (as Psychidea might possibly be) intermediate between 

 the short-spurred Luffiids and the higher Epichnopterygids where the 

 anterior spurs are wanting. This tendency in Bijugis probably shows 

 then not Fumeid affinities but a similar reaction to similaf.ycauses 

 which Epichnopteryx either escaped or resisted. The curious circum- 

 stance that the $ imagines of Proutia and Epichnopteryx (not Whittleid) 

 retain tbe pupal head-covering (as if to obtain something sufficiently 

 firm to break open the silk at the free end of the case, so as to allow 

 copulation to take place) is a further link between these groups, besides 

 the antennal structure (scaleless pectinations). 



Subfam. : Epichnopteryginae. 

 Tribe : Epichnopterygidi. 



The Epichnopteryginae break up naturally into two tribes, one of 

 which the Psychideidi is distinguished by having a short anterior tibial 

 spine (or spur), the other the Epichnopterygidi having none. The 

 former was separated by Eambur from the genus Epichnopteryx under 

 the name Psychidea (Cat. Sys. Lep. Andalousie, pp. 289 et seq.), this 

 author describing nudella, Och. (which he mistook for vectinella, 

 Schiff.), as his type*. It was for the true pectinella, Schiff., and its 

 allies (bombycella, Schiff., and proximella, Led.) that Heylaerts after- 

 wards created the genus Bijugis. 



We have unfortunately no Bijugids nor Psychideids in Britain, 

 both our Epichnopterygids falling in the tribe Epichnopterygidi, 

 although belonging to different genera. It is remarkable how different 

 the males of the species of the two genera at present recognised in this 

 tribe appear and yet how closely they are really related. Whittleia 

 has the wings of the males strongly reticulated, and is well represented 

 by retiella (reticella), its type, whilst Epichnopteryx has species whose 

 males have uniform, sooty-black wings, pulla being the well known 

 type. We have already discussed the position of the tribe in consider- 

 able detail (ante, pp. 268-270). 



The main points of the Epichnopterygid economy appear to be as 

 follows : The eggs are laid within the spindle-shaped case, agglomer- 

 ated together, and are exceedingly fragile and delicate, whilst the 

 larvae are perhaps rather less robust than those of the allied Psychids, 

 and with an abundance of pale markings on the head and thoracic 

 segments. The male pupa has a distinct waist, well developed 

 mouth-parts and appendages, and possesses two strong ventro-anal 

 spikes ; the maxillary palpi, however, are obsolete ; the cheeks dip far 

 below the jaws, the head-piece is minute, the metathorax with minute 



* There is a printer's blunder (ante, p. 270, lines 29-30), where " bombycella, 

 sapho, and nudella " should read " bombycella, nudella, and pulla," since sapho and 

 nudella both belong to Psychidea. 



