LACHNEIDES. 451 



Coitus 10. Diaphonae — Diaphone elegans (=sylviana, Stoll.), 

 D. populi,* D. crataegi.* 

 Stirps XI. Eutrichae. — Forewings long, hindwings short, both pairs with almost 

 dentated margin. 



Fam. A. Justae. — Wings distinctly dentated with waved stripes. 



Coitus 1. Cosmotrichae. — Forewings with white central mark- 

 ings and oblique dark stripes — Cosmotriche\ potatoria, 

 C. lobulina, C. lunigera. 

 Coitus 3. Lasiocampae. — Wings with almost entire margins ; 

 only the forewings marked with dentated bands — 

 Lasiocampa\\ capensis, L. pini, L. bibula, L, hirta. 

 Coitus 4. Chrostogastriae — Chrostogastria pruni. 

 Coitus 5. Phyllodesmae. — Both pairs of wings very marked and 

 large-toothed ; abdomen very large— Phyllodesma 

 phidonia, P. quercifolia,] P. ilicifolia ( = betulifolia, 

 Esp., vii., 2-3). P. tremulifolia ( = P. ilicifolia, Esp., 

 Hb., 191-192). 

 Stirps XII. Trichodae. — Wings entire ; body moderately long. 



Fam. A. Hebescentes. — Both pairs of wings of much the same form ; only 

 the forewings distinctly marked. 



Coitus 6. Malacosomata. — The forewings with two almost 

 straight lines ; hindwings without markings; both with 

 the fringes somewhat chequered. Malacosoma§ loti, 

 31. castrensis, 31. neustria, 31. disstria, 31. franconica. 

 Hiibner's stirpes x and xi evidently represent broadly the two main 

 families into which our Palaearctic species fall, and will presumably, in 

 conformity with modern spelling, be termed the Lachneidae, and Eutri- 

 chidae. His minor divisions also are usually very fairly natural ones 

 except the family Piyiacae, which contains two very divergent coitus in 

 Thaumetopoea (Eupterotids) and Dasysoma (true Lachneids). We are 

 inclined, however, to consider his Malacosomata a constituent branch 

 of stirps x, although the peculiarities exhibited by its mode of egg- 

 laying, the somewhat generalised larval structure, the unusual modifi- 

 cation of the pupal anal segments, &c, leave much to be said for 

 Hiibner's view. 



In 1827, Curtis cited querciis as the type of Lasiocampa, which was 

 accurate from the fact that it was the residuary type as soon as Hiibner 

 had created Malacosoma for neustria and castrensis, loti being inadmis- 

 sible (see supra) as the type of the latter genus, and Curtis' action 

 makes the matter quite clear. Meigen's genus Euthrix erected in 1830 

 (Sys. Besch. Eur. Schmett., ii., p. 191) for quercifolia, populifolia, hetu- 

 lifolia, ilicifolia, pruni, pini and potatoria, need only be mentioned 

 because it is considered by some authorities to have some bearing on 

 the correct name to be applied to the last-named species. 



So far was Hiibner in advance of his time that we find no authors 

 recognising his excellent work until quite recently, and we observe 



* Populi was eliminated by Stephens as the type of Poecilocampa and crataegi 

 as the type of Trichiura, in 1S29, leaving elegans the residuary type of Diaphone. 



I Lobulina and lunigera are not permissible types of this genus, not having 

 " oblique dark stripes," and thus disagreeing with the generic diagnosis. 



|| This is an impossible usage of Lasiocampa, as it does not include either of 

 the permissible types — querciis, castrensis, or neustria. 



t Quercifolia is already the type of Eutricha, and ilicifolia the type of 

 Gastropacha, so that it leaves phidonia the type of Phyllodesma. 



§ Loti is not congeneric with the other species and does not agree with the 

 generic description. This really leaves Malacosoma a monotypical genus, and 

 removes castrensis and neustria as possible types of Lasiocampa. This makes 

 querciis the residuary type of Lasiocampa and consequently trifolii the residuary 

 type of Pachygastria. 



c c 2 



