LACHNEIDES. 



457 



Fauna " (IUust. Zeitschrift fur Entomoloyie, iii., pp. 70-71). In this he 

 catalogued the European species and made some alterations in the 

 synonymy. We shall attempt to justify the synonymy that we shall 

 ourselves use, but it may be well here to compare that of the British 

 species as used by Kirby (1892), Aurivillius (1894), Dyar (1898), and 

 Grote (1898). 



Kirby. Aurivillius. Dyar. Grote. 



Poeciloeampa populi 

 Trichiura crataegi 



Clisiocampa neustria 

 Clisiocampa castr en- 

 sis 

 Macrotlnjlacia rubi 

 E rioga s te r la nestris 

 Lasiocampa quercus 

 Lasiocampa trifolii 

 Pkiludoria potatoria 



Gastropacha querci- 



folia 

 P-hyllodesma ilici- 



folia 



Poeciloeampa populi 

 Trichiura crataegi 



Malacosoma neustria 

 Malacosoma castren- 



sis 

 Macrothylacia rubi 

 Eriogaster lanestris 

 Lasiocampa quercus 

 Lasiocampa trifolii 

 Cosmotriche pota- 

 toria 

 Gastropacha querci- 



folia 

 Epicnaptcra ilici- 

 folia 



Poeciloeampa populi 

 Trichiura crataegi 



Malacosoma neustria 

 Malacosoma castren- 



sis 

 Macrothylacia rubi 

 Eriogaster lanestris 

 Lasiocampa quercus 

 Lasiocampa trifolii 

 Cosmotriche pota- 

 toria 

 Eutricha quercifolia 



Poeciloeampa populi* 

 Achnocampa\ cra- 

 taegi 

 Malacosoma neustria 

 Malacosoma castr en- 

 sis 

 Macrothylacia rubi 

 Eriogaster lanestris* 

 Lasiocampa q uercus 

 Lasiocampa trifolii 

 Euthrix potatoria 



Eutricha quercifolia 



Epicnaptcra 

 Jolia 



ilici 



Phyllodesma 



folia 



ilici- 



The disagreements between these authors will be dealt with in our 

 notes on each genus. 



Practically nothing has been written relating to the phylogeny of 

 the Lachneids, and the little that we have seen does not commend 

 itself as bearing out the result of our limited study of the group. We 

 have already stated (ante., vol. i., pp. 111-112) that Dyar's position 

 (Proc. Bost. Soc. Nat. Hist., xxvii., p. 146) is quite untenable, for he 

 derives them from the Notodonts, a superfamily which, from egg, 

 larval and pupal characters, most certainly belongs to our Noctuo- 

 Hepialid stirps. Packard's suggested derivation (Bombycine Moths of 

 America, p. 83) through the specialised Arctiid groups, Lithosiidae and 

 Syntomidae, appears to us to be still more impossible, and to be 

 negatived by all the characters that have yet been studied. Meyrick 

 appears (Handbook, p. 22) to have not given his Lasiocawjrina, at 

 any rate, an impossible phylogeny, since he derives them from his 

 Psyehina, which is essentially our position, except that we do not derive 

 one from the other but make them members (low down) of a common 

 stirps. He states (loe. cit., p. 319) that, " a near relation to the 

 Psyehina is indicated by the pseudoneuria or false veins which are 

 often developed (in exotic forms sometimes much more numerously) 

 as branches from vein 8 of the hindwings to the costa ; these are very 

 subject to variation, and are also frequently ill-defined or irregular, or 

 partially obsolete." Although not questioning the general position 

 indicated by Meyrick for the origin of the group, we are somewhat 

 inclined to disagree with his reasons for giving them this position and 

 we would suggest that he has mistaken two parallel cases of evolution 

 for a relationship, the development of these extra nervules being 



* Grote notes: "If lanestris should be congeneric with Lachneis ca tax, then 

 populi becomes the type of Eriogaster, and Poeciloeampa a synonym." We have 

 discussed this, ante, p. 450, where we have shown that populi cannot be the type of 

 Eriogaster. 



f Trichiura rejected as being too near Trichura, Hb. (1816). 



