452 BRITISH LEPIDOPTERA. 



that Stephens, in 1829, reverted to the name Bombycidae, apparently 

 unaware that Cuvier, in 1798, had designated morl, Linn., as the type 

 of Bombyx, a determination in which Schrank acquiesced. Boisduval, 

 in 1840, included the superfamily in his Bombxjcini, whilst Duponchel 

 in 1844, retaining the name Lasiocampidae for the Eutrichid group, 

 placed the Lachneids (in sensu strict.), in his Bombycidae, but still 

 included the genera (Jnethocampa and Crateronyx in this section. 

 Herrich-Sehaffer, in 1847, included the superfamily in his Ciastropacha, 

 but later, in 1856, changed the name to Bombycoidea, and called the 

 Eupterotids, Lasiocampina, whilst in 1348, Boheman, following Bois- 

 duval, used Bombycini. Kambur, in 1866, again gave the Lachneids 

 superfamily rank, but termed them Lasiocampides, a name by which 

 they have since been pretty generally known, although Snellen, in 

 1867, treated them as a single genus under the misapplied term 

 Bombyx, and Wallengren (1869) and Guenee (1875) termed them 

 Bombycoidae and Bombycidae respectively, whilst Strom (1891) called 

 them Gastropachidae, and Kirby (1892) separated the large group of 

 which Andraphisia, Suana, and Pinara, are well-known genera, and in 

 which the sexual dimorphism is exceedingly strongly marked, as 

 Pinaridae, from the more typical group, for which he retained the 

 name Lasiocampidae. But Grote, in 1888, had utilised Hubner's earlier 

 name, and gave them subfamily rank under the name Lachneinae, a 

 title which Dyar has maintained (except that he has allowed the group 

 family rank) as Lachneidae. The question now arises as to which is 

 the correct superfamily name — Lasiocampides or Lachneides. As a 

 group name there can be no doubt that Hubner's Lachneides is the 

 oldest (1806) plural form. It is the oldest name, too, under which the 

 group was first really classified (cir. 1826), and although it is evidently 

 in its conception synonymous with Schrank's iMsiocampa (1802), it 

 must be conceded that if the law of priority is to be applied to super- 

 family and family names (which must be in plural form) the super- 

 family must be called Lachneides. 



We may here note the persistence with Avhich authors include in 

 this family the Eupterotids. Aurivillius, too, has pointed out in his 

 excellent memoir (Bis, vii., pp. 121-192) that in Smith's List of the 

 Lepidoptera of Boreal North America, the genera Pseitdohazis, Hemi- 

 leuca, Sericana, &c, which are quite outside the Lachneid limits, 

 are included therein, whilst he asserts that almost half the genera 

 admitted by Kirby in his Catalogue (1892) should be excluded. 



However widely views may differ as to the main subdivisions of 

 the Lachneids, it is quite evident that Staudinger's grouping of the 

 whole superfamily into 4 genera is unsatisfactory. On this subject 

 Aurivillius speaks very clearly: "The older authors — Germar, Hiibner, 

 Curtis, Stephens, Boisduval and Duponchel— erected several very good 

 genera, but, as discovery went on, and all the species could not be 

 fitted into them, Herrich-Sehaffer, Heinemann and Snellen, instead 

 of founding new genera, united all into one genus. This, as the family 

 is a natural family, may be called a natural genus, but the differences 

 exhibited by the individuals included within this are so considerable 

 as to warrant generic separation, and if they are to be divided, it is 

 clear that Lederer's few arbitrary divisions (followed by Staudinger) 

 are not satisfactory." 



Aurivillius then states that he finds it necessary to divide the 



