376 British le'pidopterA. 



scaling whilst the other Psychids have retained it. The amount of 

 loss in certain species, apparently representing different genera, appears 

 to be as follows : 



1. Partially from the pectinations not the shaft — Canephova unicolor. 



2. From the pectinations not the shaft — Acanthopsyche opacella. 



3. From the pectinations and almost completely from the shaft — Pachythelia 

 villosella and P. littea. 



On this account Chapman considers lutea should come very near 

 P. villosella despite any neurational differences, whilst A. opacella in 

 its two extremes agrees neurationally with both ; Meyrick figures the 

 neuration of A. opacella as very close to P. villosella, but this form is 

 very rare. A. zelleri seems very like a small A. opacella and ecksteini 

 like a large one, but the case of the latter is very distinctive. A 

 Cingalese species, cana, Hmpsn., seems very close to P. villosella. 



Besides the objection to the general characters on which the sub- 

 division of Acanthopsyche is founded by Heylaerts, one objects to his 

 grouping of the species in these sections. Thus of the species which 

 he includes in Oiketicoides, we find, besides inquinata, which Hampson 

 fixes as the type of the genus, doubledayi the type of Chalia, and opacella, 

 and zelleri, which we have grouped to form our genus Acanthopsyche, 

 in sensu strict. Pachythelia, too, as used by Heylaerts is heterotypical 

 and contains villosella (the type of Pachythelia, Westd.), and unicolor 

 (the type of C'anephora, Hb.), which have, in spite of their obvious 

 differences, been placed by most authors in the same genus. Amicta 

 contains no British representative but is separated from its congeners 

 because "les deux internes (i.e., the lower nervuresat base of forewing) 

 ne s'anastomosent pas," whilst these nervures are said to anastomose 

 by means of a small branch bent from the dorsal in Pachythelia, and 

 to anastomose as in the genus Oiketicus in Oiketicoides, an arrangement 

 which we have already criticised as allowing extreme forms of opacella 

 to belong to Amicta and Oiketicoides respectively. Some of the species 

 referred by Heylaerts to Amicta appear to be very close indeed to 

 Pachythelia and Acanthopsyche, in sensu strict. We may here note 

 that although Wallengren refers unicolor to his genus Lepidopsyche, he 

 places villosella and opacella with certain true Psychids and Steno- 

 phanids in his genus Psyche. 



The early stages do not offer any very special Acanthopsychid 

 features — the eggs and larva? being very similar to those of the 

 Psychids (in sensu strict.). The main pupal peculiarities of the sub- 

 family appear to be that the male has the maxillary palpi clearly 

 marked and forming quite a separate knob extending to the antennae, 

 the cheeks extending barely to the jaws, the head-piece evanescent, 

 whilst the metathorax is narrowed, tubercles ii forming very obvious 

 waist-buttons one-fifth of the width of the segment. The female pupa 

 has the face-parts very flimsy, removed on dehiscence, only the mouth- 

 parts and antenna? are brown, the rest colourless and shrivelled up ; the 

 antenna? lie close to the jaws, the legs are little more than buttons 

 but with one or two circles representing joints (less obvious in P. 

 villosella than in A. opacella) ; the wings are very uncertain, mere 

 wrinkles ; the anterior dorsal spines are obsolete or nearly so, whilst 

 the intersegmental hooks are sharp (long in Pachythelia, short in 

 Acanthopsyche) . 



The male imagines of the Acanthopsychids not only specialised 



